agency of the University certainly was suspended, and that too upon a purely scholastic point, in which any interference from without was least of all to be expected. A fortiori; the same attributes must have come still more into play, when it was required to maintain the general laws of the land, at the Universities. If such instances did not occur before the Reformation, it was because the application of the prerogative, in this sense, was not needed. Yet, as well then, as afterwards, it might have been applied not only to protect established rights, but also to suspend, restrict and withdraw them, unless connected with any settled property. In other cases, such privileges were looked upon as only lent (as it were) by the Crown, and consequently could not be appealed to against the prerogative, which was their original source. Accordingly, in 1377, the Universities were threatened with suspension and eventual withdrawal of all the Royal privileges. A similar proceeding is found to have taken place, even in 1262; indeed, that which followed the riot of 1335, may be looked upon in the same light. The University, it is true, of its own accord, resigned its privileges; yet the very fact indicates the relation of the two parties and undoubtedly the King could always demand a like act of self-renunciation on the part of the University:

We need not suppose any real judicial procedure: except that in theory the King was supreme judge, and of course his judicial power was transferable at pleasure. The source remained always the same, whether the power exercised was called ordinary or special. As far as regards the full powers which undoubtedly correspond to the technical expression, “de audiendo et terminando,' (of oyers and terminers;) they are mentioned so frequently, (especially in Wood, Rymer, and the Parliamentary Rolls,) that it is quite unnecessary to cite single instances. They naturally refer only to more important matters and points. These full powers were frequently granted, in consequence of appeals and contests as to competency and upon these occasions the Commissioners appear, at one time in the form of a supreme court of appeals, and at another as arbitrators. The last resource was the King himself. If he took counsel at will, of his confidential advisers, this

:

is not more strange in very important cases respecting the affairs of the Universities, than in any others; nor can it form any argument against the absolute authority of the prerogative. It was in his power just as well to decide alone. But the point at which the Counsellors of the King became real judges; at which consequently (in modern phraseology) a matter passed from the administrative department, to the judicial; it is impossible to point out distinctly. It is in vain to seek, in these earlier times, for the fully developed organization of the State. We find only a King surrounded by his Lords and Counsellors, to whom, as occasion required, he transferred this or that function, in the illdefined departments of political, military, administrative, and judicial affairs. How far these Counsellors were freely chosen by the King, or how far he was forced by the special case to have recourse to them, we need not investigate here.

NOTE (87) referred to in Page 232.

On the ROYAL LETTERS.

According to all the notices that we are able to find, respecting the Royal Letters before the Revolution, it seems impossible to name a single point in the Academic existence, which might not have been controlled by them. In important matters, the examples are too numerous to need to be pointed out. As a proof, however, to what details the Royal prerogative sometimes descended, we may quote a letter sent to the Chancellor of Cambridge in 1393 (v. Dyer) "that he cause them to reform certain hurtful gutters" (guteras).

No express notices of any collision between the Universities and the authority of a Royal Letter, are to be found before the sixteenth century: but the legislation of that period does not differ in principle from that of the earlier ages. Upon the introduction of the Statutes of 1549, 1556, 1559, in Oxford and Cambridge, as of the Cambridge Statutes of 1570, nothing is recorded to imply that the concurrence of the Universities was necessary, or that any

previous communications made to them were from any other principle than courtesy. Judging even by the proceedings of the Opposition (in the Cambridge transactions of 1572) the right of resistance on the part of the Universities (where the Royal Letters were concerned) was limited to a refusal of the vote of thanks. Of course they might also try what was to be done by appeals and representations ad regem melius informandum. The Oxford Statutes of 1636, it is true, were originated by the spontaneous legislation of the University and confirmed by the King: but we cannot infer that they could not have been established just as well by the direct act of the Crown: as was the case with the important Statute respecting the election of the Proctors; which was introduced but a few years before by Royal Letters. From the Visitation of Cardinal Pole, it is true, no rule can be deduced, since he was a Legate of the Pope: still there is no doubt that the Crown had from the very first an authority as unfettered in the secular concerns of the Universities, as, before the Reformation, the Pope had in the ecclesiastical. On that occasion however, the preliminary Statutes were laid before the University for consideration, and the University was then called upon (as we have seen) to nominate a Commission for the purpose of drawing up the definitive Statutes; the Legate meanwhile by no means renouncing his right to give them of his own sole authority.

Note (88) referred to in Page 238.

On the Taxation of the Universities and Colleges.

The documentary evidence here cited will speak for itself; I do not understand, in face of such testimony, the uncertainty which prevails among English Authors upon this point. The documents are gathered from Wood, Ayliffe, Parker, Dyer, Rymer, Wilkins and the Parliamentary Rolls. When a legal opinion was asked, respecting a "tenement" in Oxford, which had been presented to the University, the reply was, that it would be to the prejudice of the King and the Town, since, as ecclesiastical property, it would

pay no taxes. The only obscure part of the passage (v. Wood, i. 140) is that which relates to the "messuage," which it appears had been before exempted from taxes, by scholars merely dwelling in it. I do not venture to assert that this was at all a general rule. In 1334 the Townspeople complained before Parliament, that the "clerks" bought so many houses and thereby exempted them from the King's taxes and the Town-rates. The Universities and Colleges are at least comprehended among the "clerks" here mentioned. In consequence of similar complaints, a fixed date had already been settled in the year 1292, after which all lands and houses acquired by the clergy were no longer to be exempt. It would appear, however, that this restriction was not long observed; for in 1379 and 1389 complaints were laid before Parliament, that pieces of land lately bought (pourchacé recemen, Rot. Parl. iii. 276) by ecclesiastical corporations and the University-colleges laid claim to be exempt, as clerical property. The only exception from these ecclesiastical exemptions is that mentioned in 1251, in the matter of the wall-rate (muragium) and in this instance, it is still doubtful, whether any were meant but the University dependents, whose exemption was never recognized, and who were favored merely so far, as to be taxed by the Chancellor, and not by the Town authorities. At all events, of such alone mention is made in the 27th Clause of the Cambridge Compact of 1501.

That the property of the Universities was regarded as ecclesiastical; that the amount of the contributions was fixed by the Convocation, and by the kindly consideration of the Crown for the Universities; is clear from the following evidence. In 1377, the tribute laid upon the Universities, by a vote of the Clergy of the Province of Canterbury in 1372, was remitted to them. In 1378 Richard II. remitted to the Universities the tax forcibly imposed upon the Church by Edward III. In 1452 three Colleges in Oxford were exempted from the two-tenths, which had been voted by the Province of Canterbury. There can be as little doubt, that exemptions of this kind frequently occurred, as that they were not always granted, nor for all Colleges alike. There is

every reason to suppose, that the Colleges of Eton and Winchester were treated in the same manner as the Universities: and in fact, they were themselves Academic foundations.

That the property of the Universities was ecclesiastical, may be said to be testified both positively and negatively: positively, when we hear of them as taxed by the Convocation of the Clergy; negatively, when they are expressly exempted from the lay-taxation imposed by the House of Commons. Of the latter character is a

Royal Letter of 1311, which says, “That Scholars should, as usual, be free from tollage for their lands and tenements." The matter appears to have become again doubtful in 1314 : "The King gave orders to his Treasurer, &c. &c., if after examining [the register of] the tollages, it shall appear that the Chancellor and Scholars ought to be free from paying tollage for their tenements, let them be left free and the Sheriff's distraint be removed."The exemption was called in question at the beginning of the reign of Edward II.: but it is evident, that the final result was favorable to the Universities, since (as we have seen) the complaint laid before the Commons in 1379, was only against the exemption of the tenements lately purchased. It had probably reference to the doubts already entertained as to the interpretation and application of the decision of 1292, and perhaps also to the claims of the academic dependents.

"That the

Certainly the summons of 1440 refers to these : Chancellor of Cambridge should lay before the Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequer the names of all persons within the jurisdiction of the University and Town of Cambridge, who are taxable for the payment of any subsidy."-It was recognized even in 1386, "That Scholars had nothing to pay of the subsidies of tenths or fifteenths, or any per centage for their tenements, schools, and books." And in 1496, we read in the granting of the supplies by the Lower House,-" Provided alway, that no landes, &c., appropriated or belonging to any College in any of the Universities of Oxford or Cambridge, or to Eton or Winchester, be charged or chargeable for or with sayd aid:" (Rot. Parl. vi. 517.) The same was the case in 1503, and when we find a Royal Ordinance