Page images
PDF
EPUB

confused mass, which were to be valid for the time being at all events, independently of others which might be introduced, and which did not come into contradiction with them. This may be proved without any trouble, as regards most of the points: in some alone, it is doubtful; and in such instances might be found perhaps an anticipation of the innovations desired. Whoever overlooks (as Walsh and Lamb have done) the whole previous developement of the College influence, the origin of the Black Congregation, or whatever else this body may have been called, in Cambridge; whoever thinks he may judge of the sixteenth century by the standard of the thirteenth, will find in these Ordinances plenty of innovations, and much that is tyrannical, according to the Liberal standard of the nineteenth. Nothing appears to me truly and essentially such, but the setting aside of the Doctors, who, until then, had had their seats along with the Heads of the Colleges. Things, however, had long fluctuated. In the documents and accounts published by Lamb, (of the dates of 1524 to 1550,) the same, or similar affairs, are transacted sometimes with, and sometimes without, the Doctors. It does not appear that they ever complained, and the young opposition of 1572 evidently thrust themselves forward, quite uncalled for, to advocate their rights. I can scarcely imagine that this was an intentional regulation, but merely a consequence of the gradual dying away of the Faculties. They preserved their influence, however, although in another form, as Seniors of the Colleges. They also continued to be represented in the Cambridge Caput, which, evidently in the "Ordinances,” is alluded to as a much earlier institution, although Walsh ascribes it to Pole.

NOTE (74) REFerred to in PAGE 161.

On the youthful age of Graduates.

I cannot here discuss at large, why a state of democracy might have been injurious in the sixteenth century, though in the thirteenth it was desirable, at least as the lesser evil. One point,

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

the

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 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

« PreviousContinue »