into, or excesses, crimes, and misdemeanors committed beneath the limits," &c.—words, which may certainly be screwed into meaning something more than the jurisdiction. That endeavors should have been made at the time to do so, is not very extraordinary, but it is curious that Wood and other more modern authors should quite have overlooked the difference between Jurisdiction and Visitation. Were any other evidence respecting these points necessary, a Cambridge document of the year 1405 would be decisive, - namely, the "Letters of the Archbishop, lest, while his Visitation is pending, the jurisdiction of the University be hindered." A Visitatio in capite et membris occurred in 1401, and shortly afterwards followed the decree of 1405, with regard to the jurisdiction. To assert that an Archiepiscopal Visitation never really took place in Oxford, is an unfounded boast. To say nothing of the earlier Visitations of 1276, and 1284, there was the Visitation of 1384, which notoriously took place in capite et membris, respecting which I refer my readers to Wood, and to the "Life of Richard II., by the Monk of Einsham :" (ed. Hearne, p. 115, sqq.) The Visitation of which notice was given in 1390, was prevented only by the violent resistance of the University. After that (between 1394 and 97) the Bull of Boniface was put forth, which was immediately attacked in the most decided manner by the Jurists of the University, and was totally rejected by King, Parliament, and Convocation; so that it was only out of extreme consideration that the University was spared the Præmunire. When the Constitutions of Arundel were introduced by the Visitation of 1410, the University once more resisted upon the strength of the Bull: but the King interfered so decidedly, that in 1411 the measures were put in force. The Oxford men next maintained, that this Visitation was no precedent for the future, as it had not been made “in capite et membris" but only "de hæresi," and they did not wish to dispute the Archbishop's right to a Visitation of that nature. But in 1390, the question had been precisely the same, and, after all, it was a mere distinction without a difference.-The principal object of the Visitation was undoubtedly the extirpation of heresies. It does not appear that any other Archiepiscopal Visitations took place, after

this aim had been attained; probably, because there was no urgent cause for it, and nobody felt inclined to stir up unnecessarily this whole swarm of academic bees; or nests of wasps, they might be called by the evil disposed. The thorough Visitations, afterwards made, were in the name of the Crown; Pole also visited the University as Legate, and not as Archbishop. This discontinuation of the Archiepiscopal right of Visitation may very probably have confirmed Oxford in its delusion that it was exempt. When, upon a later occasion, in Laud's time, the Archbishop's right of Visitation was reasserted, apparently without a real or immediate motive, and merely in the unfortunate spirit, which prevailed, of claiming theoretical powers without practical need, the University indeed again brought forward quite bona fide, all its old, and very bad, arguments. The matter, however, was laid before the King's Court, and, as was to be expected, was decided against the University: and since then, no further mention has been made of it. As to the fable or tradition current at the University, which ascribed this Bull to Boniface VIII., it scarcely indeed requires further refutation. No mention is ever made of the Bull prior to 1396, and certainly the University would have founded its claims upon it often enough before, (as in 1390 for instance,) had it really been in existence at that time. The manner, however, in which it is mentioned in the transactions of 1396 and 1398 and 1411, clearly proves, that it had been only just then obtained, and that, in such great haste and in such a way, that even the most necessary formalities were overlooked, to an extent which excited suspicions that the whole was a fabrication. Upon the subject of these transactions, I refer, after Wood, more especially to Wilkins (iii. 227, sqq.) The King mentions the Bull as "Nuper a vobis impetratum" and the Jurists speak of it among other things as follows: "Certain Masters and Bachelors of Art have lately cunningly obtained from the Court of Rome, in the name of the whole University, a certain absurd privilege of exemption," &c. Further on it says: "Holding in his hand a schedule not fortified with the Apostolic Boss, (bulla,) nor with any authentic seal nor any sign or signature whatever of a public notary." The Bull of Sixtus IV. (of the year 1480)

moreover, expressly ascribes it to Boniface IX., as Wood himself admits, although he afterwards, when he cites the Bull, puts a "VIII." after it, in order not to belie the tradition. How far the uncertain tenor of the expressions used in the Bull, "Bonifacius servus servorum, &c., datum Romæ Pontificatus nostri anno sexto," may have been made use of in support of this idea, I cannot say; it became, however, by degrees an academic article of faith, which even Wood did not venture expressly to gainsay, although he was convinced of the contrary. I have never been able to find the Bull itself anywhere except in Wood, or in others who have borrowed it from Wood, as Bulæus for instance. I have looked for it in vain in the “ Bullaria.”

NOTE (84) REFERRED to in PAGE 219.

The Universities had neither Vote nor Seat in the Convocatio Cleri.

A negative proof that the Universities had neither vote nor seat in the "Convocation of the Clergy of the Province of Canterbury," may be found in all the notices respecting these assemblies and especially in Wilkins. That they were only occasionally summoned or admitted to give evidence on certain points, may be seen most plainly in the transactions respecting the benefices in the first half of the fifteenth century. I may cite also the Royal Letters of 1414, addressed to the Cambridge Chancellor: (v. Rymer.) Since we have heard of your different dissensions, &c., we command you to appear in proper person before the Archbishop of Canterbury, and his co-brethren in Convocation, at the Church of St. Paul, &c., to the end that provision be made to this effect in the aforesaid Convocation, &c. And, moreover, you shall cause to be ordained that four sufficient men of each side be there," &c. It is expressly said, with reference to this affair elsewhere,"The King sent an order to the Chancellor of Cambridge, to be present at this London Synod, but only (non-nisi) for consultations respecting the janglings," &c. Of the taxation of the Universities, I have taken some notice below. As to the part taken by them

in several of the general Councils, (respecting which Meiners and others have such strange notions,) the following proofs will suffice. When the London Synod met in 1395, upon the subject of the Schism, [between Pope and Anti-Pope,] it is stated: "Whereas a letter from the University of Paris had been transmitted by the King of France, our King called a Convocation at Oxford, of the more skilful Theologians of the whole University, as well Regents as Non-Regents, who wrote in favor of Urban, their Roman Pope, and confirmed their writing with the seal of the Oxford University : and transmitted it by King Richard to the King of France, at Paris:" (Knighton and Wilkins, iii. 225.) In 1309 we find another Royal brief, asking "What was the opinion of the University in the matter of the Schism?" In the summons to the Archiepiscopal Convocation in 1410, after the usual formula, follow the words :-"We order you to summon all and every suffragan, &c.; also all the other men of mighty literature, equally sagacious and ripe;" to treat about the Schism: (iii. 359.) These “learned men” evidently belonged to the Universities, and were perhaps even their elected representatives or "Oratores:" indeed, their Chancellors are afterwards expressly mentioned. The Universities were in the same way invited to send their "learned men" to Pisa, Constance, and Basel. If they took no such part at Trent, it was because the Reformation had destroyed all these relations. As late as 1521, Wolsey called upon "certain academicians, with other learned men, to refute the heresy of Luther."

NOTE (85) Referred to in Page 221.

Powers of the Pope and of the Archbishop over the Universities.

We have often mentioned Papal Bulls, bearing upon these matters and upon others of a secular kind; and the analogy in this respect between Paris and the English Universities, is undeniable. Although perhaps not all the Bulls concerning the University of Paris were applicable to the English Universities; extant testimony proves that the Pope had the right to make similar

regulations with regard to them also. Few documents of the kind have been preserved, — obviously by reason of the devastations and spoliations which accompanied the Schism and the Reformation. In their temporary differences also with the Crown, documents may have been tampered with and injured, yet not so as to alter the whole character of things, which was sure, moreover, to be always recognized again by the Crown. Besides, the Clementine Constitution was expressly adopted in Oxford, and in the same way a new book of the Decretals was ordained by the Pope, in 1299, for lecturing. The matters which, under certain circumstances fell into the hands of the Papal Legates to arrange and decide, may be seen by the events of 1209 and 1214.

Examples of the Archbishop's right of Visitation may be found (in Wood and Wilkins, ii. 109) in the years 1276 and 1284; when not only matters of heresy, but even barbarisms of every kind in Grammar, (such as "ego currit; tu curro,") Logic, Natural Philosophy, &c. came under the Archbishop's reproof. In 1343, laws were proposed by the Archbishop against too great luxury in dress, which were sanctioned by the London Convocation. Those who resisted their authority were even deprived of their Degree or expelled. There were, consequently, also judicial powers that were connected with the right of Visitation.

NOTE (86) referred to in PAGE 227.

On the Prerogative of the Crown over the Universities.

The following notice may serve to illustrate and explain the above. I shall avoid all controversy (to which the temptation is so great) about the Middle-Age judicature, particularly the English; my business is solely with the Universities. Let us first turn our attention to the power which the Crown might exercise, by a "Visitatio in capite et membris." Those of the years 1538, 1549, 1555, and 1559, certainly appear at first sight to be anomalies, affording no conclusions as to the real position of things before, and scarcely any as to their after-condition. In so far as these