confusion, contradictions, and endless changes which must have occurred during the reign of Henry VIII. may be well imagined from the accounts given of Oxford: as to Cambridge, we have no special details. The tabula rasa of the Statutes of 1549, could only increase the confusion or, at the best, make room for that sort of practical Cycle which was probably established before 1514. It is very difficult to say what could have been better, under the circumstances, than again introducing the Cycle of 1514, which was a course as natural as it was legal. But all this is never taken into consideration by the liberal opposition, which thinks only of party theories and interests, to support which they accommodate (in order to suit their own views) some pretended ancient right which is as little enquired into as it is known. Note (79) referred to in Page 179. Details concerning University Professors, their Salaries, The patronage of Professorships of Royal Foundation is vested in the Crown. To those founded by the University itself, (as to all other academic offices,) the Heads nominate and the General Assembly elects. As to those endowed by individuals, there was no rule at all. In order to give a general idea of the pecuniary means under the control of the Academic authorities, I communicate the following statistical notices, in which I have thought it better to place the two Universities side by side.— The yearly total in salaries, benefices, stipends, &c. amounts, in Oxford, to £311,170; in Cambridge, to £242,568. We need not state that the Colleges give away their own benefices, offices, &c. quite independently, and without interference on the part of the University while in the University, as in the Colleges, it is the Heads who exercise the decisive influence in the appointments to offices and endowments. [Continued from the Appendix to the Author's second volume.] Respecting the moral and scientific import of the numbers of Professors, I have already said all that was needed. According to Thompson's British Annual, thirteen out of the twenty-four Professors in Cambridge, give lectures; and in Oxford ten, out of thirty-seven Professors and Lecturers. This giving of lectures itself, amounts (as we have seen) to delivering a course of from twenty to thirty hours in a year. Concerning the nomination of the Professors in both the Universities, the following brief notices will suffice. In OXFORD, excepting the five Regius Professors who are nominated by the Crown, most of the Professorships, such as those of Ancient History, Poetry, Anglo-Saxon, Common Law, Sanscrit, Political Economy, Anatomy, Medicine (Aldrich's), — are appointed by election of the University "in Convocation." In this arrangement, however, there are, in some cases, certain restrictions. Thus, the Professor of Anglo-Saxon is chosen every five years, according to a Cycle of the Colleges, &c. &c. This appears very strange: yet if the aim was to give an impulse to these studies, but little can be said against it. To some Professorial chairs, the Vice-chancellor and the Heads of certain Colleges nominate to others, the Heads of certain Colleges alone: in other cases, the election lies with the Proctors, as in regard to t Professorship of Music, which is an annual appointment. Much more complicated steps are taken for the Saville Professorship of Geometry, the election to which is placed in the hands of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, the Chancellor of England, the Prime Minister, the Lord Chief Justice, the Lords of the Treasury, and the Dean of the Arches. IN CAMBRIDGE, in addition to the four older Regius Professors, there are three more (those of Modern History, Botany, and Mineralogy) that are nominated by the Crown. The Professor of Geology is chosen by the Senate, the Chancellor of the University, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Ely, the President of the Royal Society in London, the President of the Royal Medical College, and the Members of Parliament for the University. The Professor of Astronomy and Geometry is nominated by the Lord Chancellor of England, the President of the Privy Council, the Lord Privy Seal, the Lord High Treasurer, and the Lord Steward of the Royal Household. For the Norrisian Professorship of Theology two Candidates are set forth by the Masters of Trinity, King's, and Caïus Colleges, between whom the other Heads are to choose. The Professor of Experimental Physics is elected by those "Regent-Masters" who have resided the greater part of a year before the election. The Professors of Chemistry and Anatomy are elected in the Senate, "after the manner of citizens," and the Professor of Political Economy by a grace." 66 The salaries in Oxford and Cambridge vary between £40. and £400. a year. These examples, to which we might add many others, (especially if we were to enter upon other foundations, stipendiary offices, &c.,) are quite enough to show the peculiarity of all these matters at the English Universities, and the great variety in their different arrangements. Note (80) referred to in Page 182. On the Abolition of the Black Congregation. I cannot tell how far the Statutes of 1549 were tacitly, and how far expressly abolished, to make room for the older regulations, which those Statutes had ignored. There was no want of Committees of Revision, with full powers, (for instance, A. D. 1576,) but we learn nothing about the results. According to Wood, I cannot but conclude that the Black Congregation, which was superseded by the Weekly Meeting, was in active exercise even in 1569. Whether it returned of its own accord, or was formally re-established, is more than I can say; nor can I tell, whether the expression "Conventus Hebdomadalis," and the rule to meet every Monday, already existed. Both these points, at all events, are distinctly mentioned in the Statutes of 1633. Perhaps it was not at all the intention of the Statutes of 1549, to do away with this body. As to the innovations introduced by Leicester, if we even take the very worst case for granted, namely, that he introduced them by a stroke of his pen, and without regard to the established legislative forms, we may still conclude, (from the nature of the case, and from the analogy with Cambridge,) that his measures had full as many partizans as opponents. But it is not proved that he proceeded contrary to the Statutes. The principal passage in Wood (i. 290) declares : He plunged himself still deeper in our affairs for when he had become versed in the Chancellorship, he changed the University administration in almost every part; in some things, for the better; but in most for the worse. In the last year he abolished the ancient form (named Per instantes) of electing the Proctors. He nominated, moreover, the Commissary, or Pro-chancellor, sometimes without consulting the Convocation, a thing which, it is ascertained, had in ancient times most rarely been done. Yet we ought not to suppress what is notorious from public usage, that he was the first to abolish the Black Congregation, and to enact that the Vice-chancellor, Proctors, and Heads of the Houses should meet and deliberate, before any matter was : 66 laid before the Senate of the whole University. He, moreover, decreed, that public business, and especially that of the greatest moment, should be despatched secretly, and by ballot, and not, as before, openly, and by giving in the votes to the Proctors." With regard to the nomination of the Vice-chancellor, Wood certainly says, in his Fasti, (ii. 428): He seized upon the power of nominating;" but, in a passage shortly after, with reference to abolishing the electing of Proctors per instantes, he states: "It was abrogated at the advice of the Chancellor." In this instance, at least, mention is made of the common and regular way of Academic legislation; while in the previous one, every thing is expressed very vaguely. At the very worst, the expression "seize upon" can only be made to refer to the nomination of the Vicechancellor; as to which the right was doubtful, and he had precedents in his favour. In fact, had Leicester been guilty of no greater misdeeds towards the University, he would scarcely need any justification. Besides, if he had been desirous of doing anything extraordinary, he might have easily done it by a Royal Letter. [See also the following Note, on the election of the Vice-chancellor.] NOTE (81) REFerred to in PAGE 184. On the right of the Chancellor to nominate his own Deputies. It appears to me very probable, that the Chancellor originally nominated his Deputy or Deputies, with the proviso that they were approved of by the University. Wood's explanations upon this point are in the highest degree unsatisfactory. In a passage where he professedly treats of the question, he says: "The Chancellor formerly called-in as subsidiaries, sometimes fewer, sometimes more gownsmen, as need might be." (ii. 387.) This we might imagine would infer the system of nomination. The expressions used, however, with reference to the innovations introduced by Leicester, hint at the contrary: although in the first passage the words "very rarely |
