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

done in ancient times" may be made to refer only to the "without consulting the Convocation," and not to the nominating. Such an interpretation would agree with what became the established rule: and neglecting to consult the Convocation was but a temporary act of caprice. As to the period prior to Henry VIII., we have no authentic notices whatever. The Vice-chancellors, however, were then usually nominated by the Chancellor, which is satisfactorily proved in the "Fasti." We might perhaps infer, that at an earlier period, the Chancellor, after coming to an understanding with the University, nominated his Deputies, who were forthwith recognized. That the Chancellor should have a share in the matter was only reasonable. His confidence in the Commissary was necessarily a very principal point, as they had to act together and share a common responsibility. On the other hand prudence and equity required, that the University should have no Commissary forced upon it, who did not possess its confidence. Thus a previous good understanding between the parties was the substance of the matter: the rest was a mere form, expressing the actual position of things. The following, most assuredly, was no isolated case, and will render the matter more intelligible. Russel, Bishop of London, was chosen Chancellor for the second time, after much resistance he accepted the office upon the express condition, that he should be allowed to be constantly absent, and to be represented by Commissaries, who should perform the duties of Chancellor in every respect: (v. Wood, ii. 414.) It is impossible to imagine the course pursued in choosing the Commissaries to have been other than has been just described. The Chancellor, no doubt, officially designated the persons whom, by previous conference, he had been left free to nominate and the Convocation accepted them. Nor can we doubt that the previous conference was of a private nature; that is to say, was only with the more influential members of the University, the Heads of the Colleges and Doctors, the viri potiores in fact; and that it was they who guaranteed and effected the acceptance by the Convocation of the person proposed. Just so, at this day, the four ProVice-chancellors, (who hold the same position towards the

When

Vice-chancellor as the Commissaries formerly held towards the Chancellor,) are nominated by the Vice-chancellor, though it was never enacted by Statute.

NOTE (82) referred to in Page 196.

On the right of voting of the Regents and Non-Regents. Respecting the strangely confused position of the Regents and Non-Regents, established partly by statute, partly by dispensation or sufferance, the following notice will suffice. The compulsory Regents in Oxford consist of all Masters during the first year after taking their Degree. The voluntary Regents, of the Masters during their second year's standing, the Resident Doctors of all Faculties, all the Heads of the Colleges and Halls, all Professors and Lecturers, the Masters of the Schools, the Examiners, the Deans and Censors of the Colleges: the Master's Degree and one year's Regency being necessary for all. The Non-Regent Masters are all [other] Masters after the end of the second year of their Regency. With regard to their corporate rights, all the Regents have a vote in Congregation, and all Regents and Non-Regents in Convocation. The compulsory Regents in Cambridge, consist of Masters during the first five years after taking their Degree. The voluntary Regents comprise the same classes as in Oxford, with the exception of the Masters of two years' standing, who (of course) are still compulsory Regents. The Non-Regent Masters are all Masters upon the termination of their Regency of five years. The Regents of every description vote in the Upper House of the Senate (the White Hood Congregation). In the Lower House, on the contrary, vote, in the first place, the Non-Regents,- that is to say, the Masters after the termination of their Regency; and secondly, the voluntary Regents, if so inclined. If all the Masters of Arts were to remain at the University or in closer connexion with it, kept their names upon the College books, and made use of the right of voting thus devolving upon them, the resident voluntary Regents (Doctors, &c.) voting in the Convocation in the Lower

House would naturally always be in the minority; but as the minor part only of the Masters retain this right, and fewer still make use of it, this never occurs. Walsh and others look upon it as shocking (as upon everything that does not agree with their own views) that the voluntary Regents should vote in the Lower House also; but as I have proved, (p. 100, &c.,) it perfectly corresponds with the original state, which is still preserved unrestricted in Oxford, while in Cambridge, the compulsory Regents are no longer expressly entitled to this double vote. The latter point does certainly seem to be unjust, nor can I explain the origin of it.

Note (83) referred to in PAGE 219.

On the Archbishop's right of Visitation: and on the Bull of Boniface.

My statements are certainly opposed to the opinion of Oxford men concerning the Bull of Boniface IX., (which they ascribe to Boniface VIII.;) a Bull which they considered to emancipate them not only from the Judicial, but also from the Visitorial power. But on the former point the Bull seems to contain nothing but a confirmation of claims already enforced, although never formally recognized: while to the second point it does not refer at all, although its expressions are certainly vague and oratorical enough to admit of a very extensive interpretation. The Bull itself was obtained illegally, being not only an infringement of the Statute of "Præmunire,” but against the will and without the knowledge of the University; indeed in violation of its Statutes. Accordingly, it was never recognized, either by the Crown or by the Primate; and was afterwards revoked by Pope John XXIII. Sixtus IV., it is true, again confirmed it, but, undoubtedly, only in the sense actually intended, namely, as establishing that no appeal could be made from the University Tribunals to the Archbishop's Court; a privilege which was recognized by all. The temporary revocation of the Bull was probably occasioned by the misinterpretation of it by the University. Be this as it may: this Bull, to

which the University never ventured to appeal, either before Parliament or before the Royal or Ecclesiastical Judges, and which was consequently null and void at all events in fact, cannot possibly be looked upon as a confirmation or extension of the undisputed right of the de non trahi extra. There can be no doubt that the right, in this very application of it to the Archbishop's Court, is much older than the Bull, although, like the other privileges, it was always attacked from time to time by those who suffered from it. The Bull confirms this privilege, as well as all other more ancient and more modern ones.

The following notice may serve as proof. With regard to Oxford, we find a case mentioned by Wood, (A. D. 1362,) in which a Carmelite Monk appealed to the Archbishop's Court: whereupon Royal Letters of Prohibition were issued against every appeal of the kind, both within and without the kingdom; and the jus de non trahi extra was thus protected alike against Rome and against the Archbishop. The state of things in Cambridge was also closely similar. Dyer mentions Letters Patent of the year 1352, which declare : That no scholars, in any causes touching their privileges, shall be summoned out of the University into the Curia Christianitatis:" adding thereto [in English words] : "in cases cognizable by Chancellor," Letters also of the year 1404 decree : That the Chancellor shall not be impeded by appeals to the Archbishop," &c. The Barnwell-case of 1430, which has been equally misunderstood by the Cambridge men, as the Bull of 1396 by the Oxford men, must be considered in like manner, simply as a confirmation of the already existing exemptions, de jurisdictione ecclesiastica Episcopi et Archiepiscopi. But it is just as certain that the Archbishop's right of Visitatio in capite et membris, which took place, for instance, as late as 1401, (v. Fuller,) was never given up; and can scarcely be said to have been abolished by the above-mentioned Bull. The introductory expressions are: "By the power of these presents we exempt, &c., from all jurisdiction, DOMINION AND POWER of any Archbishops soever, as also of the natural [natorum] Legates of the said see; likewise of all Bishops, and other ordinary Judges, as to contracts entered