Index 317
PART I.
=Concerning Trinity College.=
CHAPTER I.
THE FOUNDATION OF TRINITY COLLEGE.
Trinity College was founded by Henry VIII in 1546. To obtain a site
for it, he suppressed King's Hall and Michael-House, two medieval
colleges which were built on or owned most of the ground now occupied
by the Great Court, and with their revenues, largely augmented by
property of dissolved monasteries, he endowed it. The scheme of the
College and his objects in founding it are stated in his letters
patent of 19 December 1546, and particulars of the income assigned by
him to the foundation are set out in his charter of dotation dated
24 December 1546. These documents have been printed[1] and are readily
accessible, but the history of the events leading up to the foundation
of the College is less generally known. I cannot promise that the
story in itself is interesting but the material facts have never
before been brought together[2] so its telling is justified.
After the dissolution of the monastic houses, anxiety was felt in
Cambridge and Oxford lest they should suffer a similar fate. The
policy of the suppression of the two universities and the confiscation
of their property was openly advocated by politicians at court, and
naturally great alarm was felt when in 1544 an Act[3] was passed
empowering the king to dissolve any college at either university, and
appropriate its possessions.
The universities were right in thinking that the danger was pressing,
for Parker, who played a leading part in the affair, has put on
record[4] the fact that after the passing of the Act certain courtiers
importunately sued the king to have the possessions of both bodies
surveyed, meaning afterwards to obtain the same on easy terms. In
these circumstances the Cambridge authorities, says Strype, "looked
about them and made all the friends they could at court to save
themselves." In particular they urgently begged the aid of two of
their professors, John Cheke, then acting as tutor to the prince of
Wales, and Thomas Smith, then clerk to the queen's council. Here is
the letter[5] of the senate to Smith on the subject:
Si tu is es, Clarissime Smithe, in quem Academia haec
Cantabrigiensis universas vires suas, universa pietatis jura
exercuerit, si tibi uni omnia doctrinae suae genera, omnia reipub.
ornamenta libentissime contulerit, si fructum gloriae suae in te uno
jactaverit, si spem salutis suae in te potissimum reposuerit: age
ergo, et mente ac cogitatione tua complectere, quid tu vicissim illi
debes, quid illa, quid literae, quid respublica, quid Deus ipse pro
tantis pietatis officiis, quibus sic dignitas tua efflorescit,
justissime requirit: Academia nil debet tibi, imo omnia sua in te
transfudit. Et propterea abs te non simpliciter petit beneficium,
sed merito repetit officium: nec unam aliquam causam tibi proponit,
sed sua omnia, et seipsam tibi committit. Nec sua necesse habet
aperire tibi consilia, quorum recessus et diverticula nosti
universa. Age igitur quod scis, et velis quod potes, et perfice
quod debes. Sic literis, academiae, reipublicae, et religioni; sic
Christo et Principi rem debitam et expectatam efficies. Jesus te
diutissime servet incolumem.
Parker tells us that the London friends of the University, among whom
Smith and Cheke were doubtless conspicuous, wisely took the line of
welcoming an enquiry, but begged the king to avoid the expense of a
costly investigation. Their representations were successful, and he
issued a commission[6] dated 16 January 1546 to Matthew Parker (then
vice-chancellor, and later archbishop of Canterbury), John Redman
(warden of King's Hall, chaplain to the king, and later master of
Trinity), and William Mey (president of Queens', and later
archbishop-elect of York) to report to him on the revenues of the
colleges and the numbers of students sustained therewith. The
commissioners were capable and friendly.
The king must have been impatient to know the facts, for in less than
a week, on 21 January, he ordered Parker to come to Hampton Court with
the report. Immediate compliance was impossible, but the command may
well have stimulated the commissioners to act as rapidly as possible.
In fact they obtained the services of eleven clerks from the Court of
Augmentations in London, and at once set to work to collect
information.
The University was keenly alive to the risks it was incurring. To
placate the king, the senate, on 13 February, put all its belongings
at his service, and when forwarding a copy of the grace to Secretary
Sir William Paget it reminded him of the value of the University to
the state, and begged his protection. At the same time it addressed
the queen, Katharine Parr, through Thomas Smith, imploring her
advocacy.[7]
The queen replied[8] on 26 February. After complaining that he had
written to her in Latin, though he could equally well have expressed
himself in the vulgar tongue, she discoursed at length on the duties
of members of the University, and, saying that she was confident that
her wishes in these respects would be fulfilled, she concluded her
letter as follows:
I (according to your desires) have attempted my lord the King's
Majesty, for the establishment of your livelihood and possessions:
in which, notwithstanding his Majesty's property and interest,
through the consent of the high court of parliament, his Highness
being such a patron to good learning, doth tender you so much, that
he will rather advance learning and erect new occasion thereof than
[to] confound those your ancient and godly institutions, so that
learning may hereafter justly ascribe her very original whole
conservation and sure stay to our Sovereign Lord.
This was good news, and things now moved rapidly. By the end of
February the commissioners had drawn up a detailed report giving the
information required. It is printed[9] at length in the _Cambridge
Documents_, 1852, and occupies nearly 200 pages.
The commissioners in person presented to the king at Hampton Court a
brief summary of this report. We do not know the date of this
interview, but conjecturally it may be put as being early in March.
Parker has left[10] in his own handwriting a full account of their
reception as follows:
In the end, the said commissioners resorted up to Hampton Court to
present to the King a brief summary written in a fair sheet of
vellum (which very book is yet reserved in the college of Corpus
Christi) describing the revenues, the reprises, the allowances, and
number and stipend of every College. Which book the King diligently
perused; and in a certain admiration said to certain of his lords
which stood by, that he thought he had not in his realm so many
persons so honestly maintained in living by so little land and rent:
and where he asked of us what it meant that the most part of
Colleges should seem to expend yearly more than their revenues
amounted to; we answered that it rose partly of fines for leases and
indentures of the farmers renewing their leases, partly of wood
sales: whereupon he said to the lords, that pity it were these lands
should be altered to make them worse; (at which words some were
grieved, for that they disappointed _lupos quosdam hiantes_). In
fine, we sued to the King's Majesty to be so gracious lord, that he
would favour us in the continuance of our possessions such as they
were, and that no man by his grace's letters should require to
permute with us to give us worse. He made answer and smiled, that he
could not but write for his servants and others, doing the service
for the realm in wars and other affairs, but he said he would put us
to our choice whether we should gratify them or no, and bade us hold
our own, for after his writing he would force us no further. With
which words we were well armed, and so departed.
This important interview was followed by a rumour that it was Henry's
intention to found at Cambridge a new and magnificent college to serve
as an enduring record of his interest in learning, and perhaps the
University may have taken the queen's letter as indicating what was
coming. It is believed that Henry had long entertained vague ideas of
the kind, but that the definite suggestion, which was encouraged by
the queen, originated with Redman, who, as royal chaplain, had
constant access to the king and considerable influence with him.
The preparations for Henry's proposed foundation were made with
extreme speed: a wise course in view of his failing health and
variable temper. It was decided to take advantage of the Act of 1544
and suppress King's Hall and Michael-House, using their grounds and
adjoining property as the site of the new college. We have no
reference to the appointment of commissioners for the business, though
there is an allusion, quoted later, to receivers: perhaps the matter
was left in the hands of the officials of the Court of Augmentations.
Redman was the chief authority at Cambridge in the arrangements that
had to be made there, and it was intended that he should be the first
master of the new college when it was founded.
The two Societies above mentioned were (save for Peterhouse) the
oldest in the University. To Trinity men their history has, naturally,
great interest, and I interpolate a few remarks on this and their
position in 1546.
The King's Scholars, normally thirty-two in number and of all ages
from fourteen upwards, were established by Edward II under a warden in
1317 and incorporated in 1337. They had for their original home a
large house (King's Hall) situated on the grass plot and walk in front
of the present chapel, and rapidly acquired all the adjacent land
between the High Street (now known as Trinity Street) and the river,
extending their buildings in various directions. Popular writers
sometimes assert or assume that all medieval colleges were founded for
poor students. That is not universally true. No condition of poverty
was imposed on the scholars of King's Hall, nor was their life here
penurious: they had a dining-hall, library, common room, chapel,
kitchens, a brewery, a vineyard, a garden, and a staff of servants
maintained by the Society, while a good many of them also kept their
own private servants: they received a liberal allowance for daily
commons, clothes and bedding were supplied from the royal wardrobe,
and pocket-money was given to buy other things. They were appointed
by the crown largely from among the families of court officials,
nominations being restricted to those who knew Latin. After completing
their course many of these students entered what we may call the
higher civil service of the time in church or state.
In the report of the commissioners, the annual income of King's Hall
was returned as £214. 0s. 3d. and the expenses as £263. 16s. 7d.; and
it was stated that at the time there were on its boards, a master,
twenty-five graduate fellows, and seven undergraduate fellows,
besides servants. The Society owned the patronage of the livings of
Arrington, Bottisham, St Mary's Cambridge, Chesterton, Fakenham,
Felmersham, and Grendon. According to the return, the normal annual
expenditure of King's Hall, if all the scholars resided, required
£182. 18s. 4d. for the emoluments of the warden and fellows (namely,
£8. 13s. 4d. for the warden, £5. 10s. 0d. for each of twenty-five
graduate fellows, and £5. 5s. 0d. for each of seven undergraduate
fellows); £32. 2s. 0d. for the college servants (namely, the butler,
barber, baker, brewer, laundress, cook, under-cook, and the warden's
servant); £3. 1s. 4d. for the estate officers and quit-rents; £3. 19s.
4d. for the expenses of the chapel services and the bible-clerk; £5.
0s. 0d. for firing for the hall and kitchen; £5. 0s. 0d. for rushes
for the hall; £5. 10s. 4d. for the exequies of the founder and the
following refections; £29. 1s. 4d. for repairs and renewals; and £10
for extraordinary expenses.
The other College (Michael-House) whose buildings were transferred to
Trinity was of a different type. It was founded by Hervey de Stanton
in 1324 for a master and six secular clergy who wished to study in the
University. Their original home was a large house on the site of the
present combination room and the land round it; later they acquired
all the property between Foul Lane and the river. At first the
Society's means were barely sufficient for its needs, but in time it
received many gifts, and the foundation was increased to a master and
eight priests with chaplains and bible-clerks. It had an oratory in
its House but did not need a chapel as it owned St Michael's Church;
traces of this ownership will be noticed in the arrangement for stalls
(to be occupied by members of the Society) in the choir, which is sunk
below the level of the nave and chancel.
In the report of the commissioners, the annual income of Michael-House
was returned as £141. 13s. 1¾d. and its expenses as £143. 18s. 0d.;
and it was stated that there were on its boards a master, eight
fellows, and three chaplains, besides servants. Besides St Michael's
Cambridge, the Society owned the patronage of the livings of
Barrington, Boxworth, Cheadle, Grundisburgh, and Orwell. According to
the return, the normal annual expenditure of Michael-House required a
sum of £91. 10s. 8d. for the emoluments of the Society (namely, £7.
6s. 8d. for the master, £47. 17s. 4d. for the six fellows on the
original foundation, £11. 6s. 8d. for the two Illegh fellows, £15 for
three chaplains, one of whom served Barrington, and £10 for four
bible-clerks), £1 for the auditor, £6. 6s. 8d. for college servants
(namely, the cook, butler, barber, and laundress), rather more than
£17 for the exequies of benefactors, £1. 13s. 4d. for the
commemoration refection, £20 for repairs, and £6. 6s. 8d. for
extraordinary expenses. A clerical society like Michael-House had no
difficulty in providing for due celebration of the exequies of its
friends, and in fact more than twenty benefactors are mentioned by
name as being thus commemorated every year. In 1544, the House,
presumably with the object of averting its destruction, began to admit
students resident elsewhere in the University, and in a couple of
years no less than forty-eight students matriculated from it; the
number of admissions must have exceeded this, but what was involved in
such cases by admission is uncertain.
A scheme containing a "first plott or proportion" for the new College
was prepared for the king by the Court of Augmentations in London; it
seems certain that this was worked out in collaboration with Redman.
The clerk who drew it up was Thomas Ansill. The College, after its
foundation, recognized its obligation to him in the matter and
presented him to the vicarage of Barford which was and is in its gift.
He preserved a copy of his scheme; this was purchased from his son by
one of the fellows in 1611, and given to the College.
The manuscript of the suggested scheme, to which Mr Bird first called
my attention, is endorsed _Distribucio Collegii_ and headed "the
proporcon diuised for Trinite College." It is undated, but in a later
hand it is added that it was made Anno 37 Hen. 8, and therefore before
22 April 1546. From internal evidence it must have been composed in or
after March in that year, since those who graduated in that Lent term
are described as being of the standing of the degrees then taken. Of
those who graduated afterwards some are described correctly, others
not so: doubtless Redman knew about the standing of the members of
King's Hall and Michael-House, but he may well have made mistakes
about the standing of some of the junior students of other colleges.
If however we accept the endorsement as correct, we may fix the date
of the composition of the plan as being in the early half of April,
1546. This manuscript has not been printed, and I proceed to describe
it.
The object of the compilers of this scheme was to see what income
would be required for the suggested new College, and to arrange how
the income should be used; incidentally it reveals the general
organization proposed. The constitution of the College, the various
offices to be created, and the stipends intended are specified. In
most cases the names of the proposed fellows, scholars, bedesmen, and
servants are given, but generally the allocation of the proposed
principal offices is not indicated and probably had not been then
arranged. The names of the proposed fellows and scholars agree with
those appointed later, though the order is not always the same, but
the provisional list of bedesmen differs from that of those ultimately
nominated.
The _Distribucio_ begins with a statement of the names and suggested
stipends of the master and fellows. The stipend of the master was to
be £100 a year: that of each of the next fifteen fellows (one of those
proposed being a doctor of divinity, ten bachelors of divinity, and
four masters of arts) was to be £10 a year and £1 a year for livery:
that of each of the next twenty-five fellows (twenty-two of those
nominated being masters of arts and three bachelors of arts) was to be
£8 a year; that of each of the next twenty fellows and scholars (seven
of the nominees being bachelors of arts and thirteen junior scholars)
was to be £6. 13s. 4d. a year. The names are given and agree with
those in the letters patent of 19 December.
There was to be a schoolmaster (Richard Harman) who was to have £20 a
year, an usher of grammar (William Boude) who was to have £10 a year,
and provision was made for forty childer grammarians, whose names are
given, each of whom was to have £4 a year. This shows that it was
intended that the foundation should include students in grammar, and
the two teachers specially responsible for them were to be a
schoolmaster and usher.
The question arises whether it was intended to found a grammar-school
connected with the College or whether these grammarians were what we
should call undergraduate scholars or exhibitioners. The former view
is the correct one, for the royal commissioners in May 1549 definitely
asked[11] the College "to surrender the Grammar Schole." This was done
and the school was then absorbed in the College. Probably at that time
the distinction between boys at the grammar-school and junior
undergraduates was not regarded as important--the term grammarian or
grammaticus being commonly used for a junior undergraduate as well as
a school-boy[12]. This indifference to the distinction between the two
classes is illustrated by the fact that of the grammarian school-boys
named in the _Distribucio_, ten were already matriculated members of
the University, nine matriculated from Trinity shortly after its
foundation, and of the others six matriculated in 1548 or 1549 which
is not inconsistent with their having been students of the University
in 1546.
In 1547, the accounts include a particular payment for six boys of the
grammar-school, and wages for one quarter for the schoolmaster and Mr
Boude; thus showing that the school was then being carried on. In
1548, the accounts specify forty-two grammatici, in addition to
certain graduates and dialectici, as being in residence, but in this
year there is no mention of a schoolmaster or an usher though possibly
they may be included among the ten lectors for whom provision is made.
In 1551 the grammatici appear as discipuli, and thenceforth the
grammarians were treated as undergraduate scholars.
The _Distribucio_ next goes on to enumerate seven readers. Three of
these were to be public or university readers, of whom one (John
Maydew) was to read in divinity, one (John Cheke) in Greek, and one
(Thomas Wakefield) in Hebrew, each at £40 a year. The other four were
to be fellows of the College, of whom one (Simon Bridges) was to read
in divinity at £6. 13s. 4d. a year, two in philosophy at £5 a year
each, and one in logic at £5 a year: such stipends to be in addition
to their fellowship emoluments. It would seem that Bridges or Briggs
declined to accept the nomination to a fellowship at Trinity and
accordingly was not appointed to the office. Provision was also made
for two under-readers in logic at £2. 3s. 4d. each. Next are mentioned
two examiners in scholastic acts at £5 a year each; and two chaplains
at £6. 13s. 4d. a year each, one (Henry Man) for the fellows and the
other (unnamed) for the childer and bedesmen. I note that Henry Man
occupied for many years rooms in the Great Court adjoining and on the
west side of what is now known as the Queen's Gate.
The next entry is that of twenty-four almsmen or bedesmen at £6 a year
each; the names of all but one are given, but the list differs
somewhat from that appearing in the account book of 1547 of those
appointed when the College began work. The unnamed bedesman was the
cook of Michael-House, and it is impossible not to wonder whether his
inclusion in this list (which involved his retirement from the
kitchens) was due to the memory of indifferent dinners eaten by Redman
when a guest at the high table of that House.
The _Distribucio_ then returns to the enumeration of the officers and
servants of the College. There were to be two bursars at £4 a year
each; a vice-master at £5 a year; two deans to direct disputations of
divinity and philosophy, one at £4 a year, and the other at £3. 6s.
8d. a year; eight bible-clerks, whose names are given, to serve the
hall, choir and vestry, and to attend upon the curate when visiting,
at £2. 13s. 4d. a year each; an organ-player at £6 a year and his
commons; two butlers, the senior at £5 a year and the junior at £4 a
year; a manciple at £6. 13s. 4d. a year; a master-cook at £6 a year;
two under-cooks, one at £4 a year, and the other at £3. 6s. 8d. a
year; and a turn-spit at £2 a year. There was also to be a barber at
£5 a year; a laundress at £5 a year; a porter at £6 a year; a
bricklayer at £4 a year; a carpenter at £4 a year; a mason at £4 a
year; two stewards of lands at £5 a year each; an auditor for the
lands at £10 a year; a receiver for the lands at £13. 6s. 8d.; and an
attorney in the exchequer for the lands at £3. 6s. 8d. Allowance was
to be made for the yearly distribution of alms to the amount of £20;
and of another £20 to be spent on the mending of highways. The total
expenditure contemplated amounts to £1286. At the end in another
handwriting is added that allowance (amount unspecified) should be
also made for wine and wax, riding, extraordinary charges, and
repairs.
It must have been in April, or early in May, 1546, that the
commissioners, or other officials concerned, took possession of King's
Hall and Michael-House and the ground adjacent thereto. They at once
made arrangements to shut up Foul Lane which ran across the present
Great Court, to purchase such part of that court as did not belong to
King's Hall and Michael-House, and to enclose the site. Stone and
other materials for the new work were taken from the church and
cloisters of the dissolved Franciscan monastery which stood on the
land now occupied by Sidney Sussex College, and in a survey, dated
20 May 1546, those buildings are described as having been already
partially demolished in order to provide "towards the building of the
King's Majesty's new College."
It is probable that during this time members of King's Hall and
Michael-House were in residence, and possibly also some of the
members-elect of Trinity College. The cost of the maintenance of the
House and the expenses of the alterations must have been heavy, but in
December 1546, the Court of Augmentations was ordered[13] "to pay Dr
Redman of your new College in Cambridge £2000 towards the
establishment and building of the same, and in recompense for revenues
of their lands for a whole year ended Michaelmas last, because the
rents were paid to your Majesty's receivers before they had out
letters patent for their donation." We have no record of these
expenses, but I conjecture that this grant allowed a clean start to be
made from Michaelmas 1546.
The members of the new College entered into possession of the
buildings and began their academic life as members of Trinity College
about Michaelmas 1546. The surrender of King's Hall and Michael-House
to the king took place on 28 October, and arrangements were than made
to pension the master and eight fellows of Michael-House and one
fellow of King's Hall. Redman was appointed master of the new
foundation.
The original members of the Society were selected from the whole
University with the addition of a few Oxonians: it is believed that
all the nominees were favourable to the new learning and the
protestant faith. Of the forty childer grammarians named in the
_Distribucio_ all save one accepted the nomination; of these, six had
been previously members of Michael-House, one a member of Pembroke,
one of Peterhouse, one of St John's, and one of some unnamed College.
Of the sixty students nominated to fellowships or scholarships in the
letters patent, fourteen did not reside and presumably refused the
nomination. Of the forty-six who accepted the office, thirty-six were
graduates and ten were non-graduates. Of these thirty-six nominees,
three came from Michael-House, one from King's Hall, two from
Christ's, one from Corpus, one from King's, one from Pembroke, two
from Peterhouse, one from Queens', one from St Catharine's, and three
from St John's: of the colleges or hostels from which the remaining
twenty had graduated, I can find no particulars. Of the ten
non-graduates who accepted the office, one had been at Pembroke, one
at Queens', two at St John's, and one at Trinity Hall: of the previous
history of the remaining five I know nothing. Of the fourteen who did
not reside and presumably declined the offer, eleven were graduates,
of whom one had been at Corpus, one at King's, one at Pembroke, three
at Queens', two at St John's, and two at Oxford, and of the remaining
graduate I can find no particulars. Of the three non-graduates who did
not accept the nomination, one had been at Michael-House, one at
Oxford, and of the other I know nothing. It appears from the
account-books that there were also still in residence a few
students[14] who had been members of King's Hall and Michael-House: it
was only courteous to give these deposed students the hospitality of
the House, and they occupied a different position to the pensioners
and fellow-commoners who later were admitted in considerable numbers.
We cannot prove or disprove the presence at this time of other
students, but it is most likely that at first there were no residents
in College other than those mentioned above.
The legal formalities connected with the surrender of the properties
of King's Hall and Michael-House took a considerable time, and were
not completed till 17 December 1546. The letters patent founding the
College and the charter of dotation were signed a few days later[15].
The actual endowment granted was valued at £1640 net a year, which
must have been deemed ample to provide for the expenses and the
maintenance of the House. Comparing this income and the estimated
expenditure with those of King's Hall and Michael-House we gather how
much more important than these colleges was the contemplated new
foundation.
Thus were King's Hall and Michael-House dissolved, but only to be
merged in a new and nobler Society. The letters patent founding
Trinity College state that Henry to the glory and honour of Almighty
God and the Holy and Undivided Trinity, for the amplification and
establishment of the Christian and true religion, the extirpation of
heresy and false opinion, the increase and continuance of divine
learning and all kinds of godliness, the knowledge of language, the
education of youth in piety virtue discipline and learning, the relief
of the poor and destitute, the prosperity of the Church of Christ, and
the common good and happiness of his kingdom and subjects, founded and
established a College of letters, sciences, philosophy; godliness, and
sacred theology, for all time to endure. These are noble objects, and
we may look back with honourable pride to the way in which Trinity
College has on the whole carried out the intentions of its founder.
The organization of the new College followed closely that outlined in
the _Distribucio_. To meet the expenses already incurred during the
Michaelmas term the Court of Augmentations[16] in January 1547 paid
Redman £590 "towards the exhibition of King's Scholars in Cambridge."
This was about one-third of the total intended income of the House,
and presumably cleared matters up to 24 December 1546, when the
College entered into possession of its endowments. If we may trust the
sermon preached in London on 12 December 1550, by Thomas Lever,
subsequently master of St John's College, Trinity had reason to regret
the death of Henry in January 1547, for the preacher asserted that a
substantial part of the intended endowment was appropriated by
courtiers in London; I have never investigated what part (if any) of
it was thus lost to the College.
The first account-book of the new College covers the civil year 1547,
but only certain selected items of income and expenditure appear
therein. It shows total receipts of £786. 16s. 7d. and total payments
of £799. 11s. 1½d. Most of the income is said to have come from the
"Tower." I conjecture that rents, etc. were paid to the master who
kept the college moneys in the treasury in the Tower, and the bursar
in his book accounted only for such portion of it as was handed to
him: of other sums received or paid on account of the Society, we
have no particulars. In most cases the commons (though not the
stipends or wages) paid to officers are set out, but up to Lady-Day
instead of giving full details there is an entry of £52. 6s. 10d. paid
to fellows and scholars for "the first quarter after the erection,
besides stipends and wages." The account-book for the next year, 1548,
is better kept. It shows total receipts of £531. 13s. 11½d. and total
payments of £528. 12s. 8½d. In the accounts of this year are mentioned
a master, fifty graduate fellows (of whom thirteen were bachelors),
ten dialectici, forty-two grammarians, and eight bible-clerks. Entries
appear of payments for commons to six former members of King's Hall
and Michael-House, but of these only three seem to have been in
regular residence. An examination of the early account-books allows us
to see something of the development of the College, but a description
of this would hardly come within the purview of this paper.
[Footnote 1: _Cambridge Documents_ issued by the Royal Commissioners,
London, 1852, vol. III, pp. 365-410.]
[Footnote 2: This was true some years ago when this paper was written,
but since then I have given part of the story in a booklet on the
King's Scholars and King's Hall which, at the request of the College,
I wrote in 1917 for the meeting held to celebrate the six-hundredth
anniversary of the execution by Edward II of the writ establishing
those scholars in the University of Cambridge.]
[Footnote 3: 37 Henry VIII, cap. 4.]
[Footnote 4: _Correspondence of M. Parker_, Cambridge, 1852, p. 34.]
[Footnote 5: _Life of T. Smith_ by J. Strype, Oxford, 1820,
pp. 29-30.]
[Footnote 6: _State Papers_, Domestic, 1546, vol. XXI, part i, no. 68.
See also J. Lamb's _Documents_, London, 1838, pp. 58-59;
_Correspondence of M. Parker_, Cambridge, 1852, p. 34.]
[Footnote 7: _State Papers_, Domestic, 1546, part i, nos. 203, 204.]
[Footnote 8: _Ecclesiastical Memorials_ by J. Strype, Oxford, 1882,
vol. XI, part i, pp. 207-208; _Correspondence of M. Parker_, p. 36.]
[Footnote 9: _Cambridge Documents_, vol. I, pp. 105-294.]
[Footnote 10: _Correspondence of M. Parker_, pp. 35-36; J. Lamb's
_Documents_, p. 59.]
[Footnote 11: _State Papers_, Domestic, Edward VI, May 1549.]
[Footnote 12: Senior undergraduates were then commonly termed
dialectici.]
[Footnote 13: _State Papers_, Domestic, 1546, no. 647 (25).]
[Footnote 14: Three fellow-commoners had matriculated from King's Hall
in 1544.]
[Footnote 15: The charter of foundation, dated 19 December, and that
of endowment, dated 24 December, are printed at length in the
_Cambridge Documents_, vol. III, pp. 365-410.]
[Footnote 16: C.H. Cooper, _Annals of Cambridge_, Cambridge, 1842,
vol. I, p. 452.]
CHAPTER II.
THE TUTORIAL SYSTEM.
The word Tutor is used at Cambridge to describe an officer of a
College who stands to his pupils in loco parentis; now-a-days he may,
but does not necessarily, give direct instruction to them. The object
of this chapter is to describe the development of the office in
Trinity College.
Trinity College was founded in 1546 by Henry VIII. It is, however,
essential in dealing with its early history to bear in mind that it
was founded in a pre-existing[17] University having well-established
rules and customs. Nearly all the original members of Trinity had been
educated at Cambridge, they were familiar with its traditions, and
even the buildings they occupied were associated with the college life
of earlier times. It was intended that the Society should promote the
reformed religion and the new learning, but there is no reason to
suppose that in establishing it, it was wished or proposed to alter
the existing practice about the tuition, guidance, and care of the
younger students.
In the system in force in the University shortly before the
foundation of Trinity, the students corresponding to our scholars and
sizars lived in endowed colleges (of which eight were founded before
1353 and seven between 1440 and 1520), most of those corresponding to
our pensioners in unendowed private hostels (of which in the sixteenth
century there were twenty-seven and in earlier times possibly a few
more), and most of those belonging to religious orders in monasteries
or monastic hostels. A student on admission to the University was
apprenticed to some master of arts or doctor who directed the lad's
studies until he took a master's degree. This graduate was known as
the student's "master": in the case of a member of a college we may
assume that the master was chosen from among the senior members of the
House, though it is doubtful if this was necessarily so in the case of
the hostels. The head of a college or hostel was responsible for the
conduct and control of the lad in non-scholastic matters, but in
colleges in later times this work was assigned to a dean. Thus for
practical purposes a tutorial system already existed in the medieval
system of apprenticeship and control.
The royal scheme for Trinity College comprised a master, fifteen
senior fellows, twenty-five middle fellows, twenty junior fellows (of
whom, in 1546, thirteen were undergraduates), and forty grammarian
school-boys. In addition to these, there were servant-students (known
as sizars or subsizars), each being attached as gyp to a particular
fellow, and receiving education, board, and lodging in lieu of money
wages. There is nothing to show whether or not the presence of
pensioners was contemplated.
We have a list, apparently complete, of all the intended officers;
tutors do not appear among them, though a schoolmaster and usher were
provided for the grammarians. Hence it would seem that the relation
between an apprenticed undergraduate and his master was regarded as
personal, and that the latter was selected and paid by his pupil or
pupil's guardian, and not by or through the College--I conjecture that
this was the usual medieval practice. The deans are mentioned as
officers of the College, and the discipline of the younger members was
part of their business, though no doubt a lad's master or tutor
assisted in enforcing it. The formal charter of foundation was given
by Henry in December 1546, but the grammarians are not mentioned
therein.
During the next six years, 1546-1552, three important developments
took place. First, the grammar-school side of the College was
abandoned, and all boys then in the school were entered as scholars
of the House; next, and perhaps consequent on the abolition of the
school, a distinction between fellows and scholars was drawn; and
finally, following the growing custom of other colleges, the
admission of pensioners was definitely recognized as desirable, thus
introducing a class of students below the standing of scholars. Before
coming to the subject of tutors it will be well to add a word or two
about the pensioners and scholars of these early days.
With the upset of the medieval scheme of education the number of
pensioners and fellow-commoners seeking admission to the University
greatly decreased, and the reception of a limited number of them in
the colleges fairly met the needs of the University. The private
hostels were then no longer wanted and being unendowed disappeared.
Thus when again, as soon happened, the number of would-be pensioners
increased, it was necessary (unless new non-collegiate arrangements
were made for their reception in the University) to admit them in
larger numbers to the colleges. At Trinity a limit was, in theory,
placed on the number of pensioners admissible, but not on that of
fellow-commoners. A pensioner at Trinity, and I suppose also at other
colleges, had to be qualified by learning and morals for admission,
and I conceive further that his entry was conditional on his finding a
fellow who would receive him. A pensioner or fellow-commoner had no
rights, and resided only on such terms and as long as the College or
the fellow receiving him willed. I believe that students of this class
did not often stay here for more than three or four years unless in
due course they became scholars.
A most important question for the new College was how the supply of
scholars and fellows should be provided. In King's Hall vacancies
were filled by royal nomination, and boys came into residence as
scholars-elect. We do not know what was proposed in 1546, but I think
that, as far as entry to the grammar-school was concerned, nomination
by the senior fellows was the most likely method to have been
contemplated. The abandonment of the school and the enrolment of all
its members as scholars of the House must however have raised the
question in an acute form, and it was settled in or before 1552 by the
establishment of an annual examination for the election of scholars.
Probably from the first it was intended that the new fellows should be
formally elected and admitted.
The charter of 1546 contains a reference to statutes to be given later
by the king. There was considerable delay in preparing these, and the
liberty of action thus left to the Society seems to have been used
unwisely, for the commissioners of 1549 reported that its state was
"much out of order, governed at large and pleasure for want of
statutes ... the fellows for the most part too bad."
In November 1552 the College received the long-expected statutes by
which it was to be governed: with their appearance we leave the field
of conjecture and come to facts. The foundation as here described
included a master, fifty fellows of the standing of master or doctor,
and sixty bachelor and undergraduate scholars: provision was also made
for student-servants or sizars. Vacancies in the roll of scholars were
to be filled by an annual election held at Michaelmas on the result
of a two days' examination. Bachelors of arts and those insane or
suffering from contagious disease (a curious conjunction) were
ineligible: also there could not, at any one time, be more than three
scholars from any one county. The regulation that a bachelor was not
eligible for election to a scholarship suggests that a candidate might
be in residence as an undergraduate, though it does not exclude the
candidature of those who were not already members of the House, but
the custom (if it ever existed) of electing non-residents had died out
before 1560. The admission of pensioners, not exceeding fifty-four in
number, was definitely recognized in 1552: of these the master might
take as his pupils four, and each fellow one. The pensioner which
every fellow might thus receive was in addition to such scholars as
had been assigned to him as pupils, but though scholars had tutors,
the fellow responsible for a pensioner is not explicitly described as
his tutor. It seems that an important part of the duty of a tutor was
to see that all payments due to the college from his pupils were made
punctually. Scholars, unlike pensioners, had definite rights.
The following are some of the regulations:
Nemo ex discipulis sine tutore in collegio sit, qui fuerit,
expellatur. Pupilli tutoribus pareant, honorem paternum et
reverentiam exhibeant, quorum cura consumitur in illis informandis
et ad pietatem scientiamque instruendis. Tutores fideliter et
diligenter quae docenda sunt suos doceant, quae agenda instruant et
admoneant. Omnia pupillorum expensa tutores collegio praestent, et
singulis mensibus aes debitum pro se et suis quaestoribus solvant.
Quod ni fecerint, tantisper commeatu priventur dum pecunia
dissolvatur. Pupillus neque a tutore rejiciatur, neque tutorem suum
ubi velit mutet nisi legitima de causa a praeside et senatu
probanda; qui fecerit collegio excludatur.... In discipulis
eligendis praecipua ratio ingenii et inopiae sit, in quibus ut
quisque valet maxime ita ceteris proferatur. Eo adjungatur doctrinae
studium et mediocris jam profectus, et reliqui temporis spes illum
fore ad communem reipublicae posthac idoneum. Horum studium sit ut
vitae innocentiam cum doctrinae veritate conjungant, et in veritate
rerum inquirendi et honestate persequenda laborent.... Sic sint
grammaticis et studiis humanitatis instituti ut inquisitiones aulae
sustinere et domesticas exercitationes suscipere possint....
Pensionarii et studiorum socii in collegium recipiantur ...
provideatur ut neque praesidi plures quam quatuor neque singulis
sociis plures uno pensionario sint.
Grave offences were punishable by expulsion, rustication, etc., and
those who committed only "minor offences" were liable to penalties of
extreme severity. Thus we read:
Quicunque in aliqua parte officii sui negligentior fuerit, et
aliquem e magistratibus bene admonentem non audiverit, aut
insolentem se ostenderit, si ephoebus sit verberibus sin ex ephoebis
excesserit decennali victu careat et uterque praeterea poenitentiam
declamatione tostetur.
The text is corrupt, but the meaning is clear. A marginal note
suggests the obvious correction that decemdiali should be read for
decennali. The deans superintended, even if they did not inflict,
corporal punishment when it was ordered.
Another code of statutes was drawn up in 1554, but was never sealed,
and thus did not become effective. I need not quote the text which, on
tutorial matters, does not differ materially from that of 1560. The
draft contains a clause to the effect that the master of the College
was not to take more than four pensioners as his pupils, a fellow who
was a master of arts or of some superior degree was not to take more
than two, and no one else was to take a pensioner as a pupil. The word
"two" however has been crossed out and "one" substituted. From this it
would seem that the question of how many pensioners it was desirable
to admit was already a matter of debate.
In 1560 new statutes were granted to the College, and its constitution
as then settled remained practically unaltered till 1861. In this
code the foundation is described as including a master, sixty fellows,
four chaplains, sixty-two scholars, and thirteen sizars or gyps,
namely, three for the master and one for each of the ten senior
fellows. Henceforth scholars were elected annually in the spring, from
undergraduates already in residence. By a gracious provision, whose
disappearance in 1861 I regret, it was ordered that forty of the
scholarships should be specifically associated with the name of
Henry VIII, twenty with that of queen Mary, and two with that of
Thomas Allen as pre-eminent benefactors. Pensioners and subsizars were
also admissible to the Society on conditions. If fellow-commoners
dined at the high table, as seems likely, they may have been reckoned
extra numerum. Every student under the degree of master of arts was
required to have a tutor, thus regularizing the position of
fellow-commoners, pensioners, sizars, and subsizars as members of the
College, and bringing them under the same rule as scholars.
The regulations in point are as follows:
Est ea quidem ineuntis aetatis imbecillitas ut provectiorum consilio
et prudentia necessario moderanda sit, et propterea statuimus et
volumus ut nemo ex baccalaureis, discipulis, pensionariis,
sisatoribus, et subsisatoribus tutore careat: qui autem caruerit,
nisi intra quindecim dies unum sibi paraverit, e collegio ejiciatur.
Pupilli tutoribus pareant, honoremque paternum ac reverentiam
deferant, quorum studium, labor, et diligentia in illis ad pietatem
et scientiam informandis ponitur. Tutores sedulo quae docenda sunt
doceant, quaeque etiam agenda instruant admoneantque. Omnia
pupillorum expensa tutores collegio praestent, et intra decem dies
cujusque mensis finiti aes debitum pro se ac suis omnibus senescallo
solvant. Quod ni fecerint, tantisper commeatu priventur dum pecunia
a se collegio debita dissolvatur. Cautumque esto ne pupillus
quispiam vel stipendium suum a thesaurariis recipiat vel rationem
pro se cum eisdem aliquando ineat, sed utrumque per tutorem semper
sub poena commeatus menstrui a dicto tutore collegio solvendi fieri
volumus.... Pensionarios ut studiorum socios in collegium
recipiendos statuimus; sitque in illis recipiendis ratio morum ac
doctrinae diligenter habita; magistris artium aut superioris gradus
unum, baccalaureis autem nullum omnino concedimus. Nemo illorum
admittatur nisi a decano seniore et primario lectore examinatus.
In time, serious discrepancies between the statutes and the practice
of the College grew up. Some, but not all, of these were removed in
1844, when the statutes were revised. The sentence above quoted
"magistris artium aut superioris gradus unum, baccalaureis autem
nullum omnino concedimus" was then struck out.
In 1861 new statutes were given to the College: these contain no
mention of pensioners, but merely prescribe that no bachelor or
undergraduate shall be without a tutor. The present statutes of 1882
similarly direct that no member of the College in statu pupillari
shall be without a tutor.
Except by accident, we have no record before 1635 of the names of the
tutors of the various students, but it is probable that at first the
master regularly entered some undergraduates as his own pupils:
certainly Whitgift did so, and so too did some of his successors. It
seems most likely also that by 1560 it was already usual for the
master to assign a student to that fellow who was to act as his tutor,
though of course regard must always have been paid to the wishes of a
parent or guardian in this matter. This remained the ordinary custom
for perhaps two hundred years.
Some information on tutorial affairs in the sixteenth century may be
gathered from an account-book kept by Whitgift, covering parts of the
years 1570 to 1576, and containing statements of the charges he made
as tutor: the names of thirty-nine men are given. In the history of
Trinity College which I wrote for my pupils some years ago, I
published a few of these bills. I give here a few details illustrative
of the many matters with which a tutor was then concerned.
The payment made to him as tutor varied in different cases, but 6s.
8d. a quarter for a sizar, 10s. for a pensioner, and 13s. 4d. for a
fellow-commoner were usual sums. In a few cases there are records of
an admission-fee to the College or a fee for entering into commons:
the normal payment for this was 15s. for a pensioner, and 20s. for a
fellow-commoner--there is no mention of any such charge in the case of
a sizar. The cost of the silly ceremony by which the senior
undergraduates initiated a freshman, known as his salting, was charged
in the bills, and varied from 8d. for a sizar and 1s. 4d. for a
pensioner to 4s. for a fellow-commoner. The charge for matriculation
appears to have been 4d. for a sizar, 1s. for a pensioner, and 2s. for
a fellow-commoner.
Of course the cost of the purchase of books comes in most of the
accounts. Aristotle, Plato, Sophocles, and Demosthenes constantly
appear among Greek writers, Homer and Xenophon only once; Cicero,
Caesar, Sallust, and Lucian occur often among the Latin authors, Livy
only once. Euripides and Horace are noticeable by their absence. I
have not observed any mathematical books. Works by Seton and Erasmus
are frequently mentioned. Among English books we have a prayer-book
charged at 1s., a service-book at 1s. 8d., a bible at 9s., and a
testament at 2s. The charge for a bible in Latin was 7s. and for a new
testament in Greek 2s. A Greek grammar cost 1s., 1s. 2d., or 1s. 4d.;
a Hebrew grammar 1s. which seems cheap. Paper was charged 4d. by the
quire and 2s. 6d. by the half-ream: the cost of a bundle of pens and
an inkhorn was usually 4d. or 6d.
Clothes appear to have been expensive, but naturally the cost varied
widely according to the status of the student. Apparently at that time
the wardrobes of men were fairly extensive: the prices of the various
articles are set out in full. I hesitate to distinguish academic gowns
from other robes, but the charge of 4s. to John Waring, a pensioner,
for his gown and square cap, as also the charge of 2s. 6d. for making
a gown and hood for Phillip Harrison, another pensioner, must, I
think, be taken to refer to academic costumes. The cost of a surplice
to Richard Therald, a sizar, was 4s., but to Henry Gates, a
fellow-commoner, was as much as 11s. 7d.
As to amusements, the richer students seem to have kept or hired
horses at considerable cost. Horse-hire to London varied from 4s. to
8s.; to Lincoln from 3s. 6d. to 4s. 8d. Bows and arrows constantly
appear in the bills--the price of a bow ranging from 1s. 4d. to 3s.
Tennis was another popular amusement of the day. The court stood on
the site of the north end of the present library, and the keeper of
the court was regarded as a college servant; there are no charges in
connection with the bats, balls, or use of the court.
It may be interesting to notice that coals were used regularly as well
as wood: they were sold at 1s. 3d. a sack. Candles were charged at
either 3d. or 4d. a pound. Among miscellaneous things 6d. was charged
for an hour-glass; 4d. for a mouse-trap; 10d. for a scabbard for a
rapier; and 10s. for a lute. A set of singing lessons cost 3s. and a
set of dancing lessons 6s.
Sickness appears to have been common. In general we have no record of
the duration of illnesses, and the charges for doctors and chemists
varied widely. The charge for plucking out one tooth seems to have
been 1s. 4d., but for two teeth the dentist reduced his charge to 1s.
a tooth.
We get another aspect of student and tutorial affairs in the next
century (in 1659) contained in a long letter from which I gave
extracts in the history of the College to which I have already
referred. Robert Creighton, pronounced Crickt-on, of Somersetshire, a
Westminster boy and a scholar of the House, was then a candidate for a
fellowship. At the time there were in residence a good many zealots,
introduced into the Society under presbyterian or Cromwellian
auspices, and one of these, a year senior to Creighton, was also a
candidate for a fellowship. Just before the election some of the
scholars were playing tennis in the college court when the ball by
chance struck one of them in the eye. On this Creighton called out "Oh
God, Oh God, the scholar's eye is stroke out," whereon his competitor
accused him to the authorities as a profane person who took God's
name in vain; and as confirmation added that he never came to the
private prayer meetings of the students. By good luck the master was
Wilkins, afterwards bishop of Chester, who owed his appointment more
to the fact that he had married Cromwell's sister than to his devotion
to the doctrines of the Independents. It is clear that he disapproved
of the complaint, but he considered it prudent to summon a meeting of
the seniority to hear the case and examine witnesses. Creighton's
tutor, Duport (who gave us our large silver salt-cellar), spoke up for
his pupil, and thereon the master said that the charge looked like
malice, and it did not matter much if Creighton did neglect to go to
the private prayer meetings of undergraduates since he never failed to
go to chapel and to his tutor's lectures. He then proposed, if we may
trust our authority, that the seniority should at once reject the
informer and his friends, and elect to the vacant fellowships the
accused and his friends, and so it was done. Such were elections then!
It is satisfactory to add that public opinion in the College was
against those who trumped up this ridiculous charge, and on the day
after the election the following notice was found on the screens. "He
that informed against Ds Creighton deserves to have his breech kickt
on." An amusing glimpse of life under the Commonwealth. Note that the
tutor gave lectures to his pupils, and from the tutorial point of
view observe the esteem gained by regular attendance thereat.
No obligation to take pupils seems ever to have been imposed on
fellows, though a pupil once taken could not be transferred. This, and
the fact that scholars were elected only from students already in
residence, made it undesirable to retain any rule to the effect that a
fellow should not have more than one pensioner as a pupil. Hence in
time those who liked tutorial work and did it well were allowed to
have more than one pensioner pupil, and gradually the bulk of the
entries came to be made under a comparatively few tutors.
The average annual entry of students at Trinity during the years 1551
to 1600 was fifty-one, during the years 1601 to 1650 was fifty, and
during the years 1651 to 1700 was thirty-nine. During the years 1701
to 1750, it sank to twenty-seven: this diminution being partly due to
the Bentley scandals. During the years 1751 to 1800 the average annual
entry was thirty-seven, during the years 1801 to 1850 was one hundred
and sixteen, during the years 1851 to 1900 was one hundred and
seventy-four, and during the years 1901 to 1913 was one hundred and
ninety-nine.
Let us see how the men were divided among the tutors. From April to
December 1635, twenty-eight students were admitted who were
distributed among seventeen tutors, of whom eleven had only one pupil
and none had more than four pupils. Taking every tenth year
thenceforward, we find that in 1645, there were (excluding ten fellows
intruded by order of parliament) fifty-seven entries; of these
fifty-one were divided among ten tutors. In 1655, there were
fifty-three normal entries divided among twelve tutors; in 1665,
forty-three entries divided among six tutors; in 1675, forty-nine
entries divided among twelve tutors; in 1685, thirty-four entries
divided among five tutors; and in 1695, twenty-eight entries divided
among four tutors. In 1705, there were twenty-nine entries, of these
twenty-eight students were divided among three tutors. In 1715, there
were fourteen entries divided among six tutors; in 1725, thirty-four
entries divided among twelve tutors; in 1735, twenty-eight entries
divided among six tutors; and in 1745, twenty-one entries divided
among eight tutors.
In 1755 there were only two fellows acting as tutors, namely
S. Whisson and J. Backhouse. Thenceforth there were definite tutorial
"sides," each under one tutor or joint tutors, a tutor being appointed
to a side when a vacancy occurred; and every admission to the College
being made on a designated side. In effect the work of a tutor was now
regarded as being of a character which should occupy a man's whole
energies, and it was generally held that a tutor, while he held
office, had not, and ought not to have, leisure during term-time for
independent work. From 1755 to 1822 there were two sides. In 1822 a
third side was created. In 1872 one of the sides (being the lineal
successor of Backhouse's side) was divided into two. These four sides
are to-day designated in the college office by the letters _A_, _B_,
_C_, _D_; side _A_ being that created in 1822, sides _B_ and _D_ being
the two made out of the successor of Backhouse's side, and side _C_
being the lineal successor of Whisson's side. [In the pre-war days of
1914 side _A_ was under Dr Barnes, side _B_ under Mr Laurence, side
_C_ under Mr Whetham, and side _D_ under Dr Fletcher.]
Proceeding by decades in the same way as before, the entries on each
of the two sides (denoted by _C_ and _BD_) which existed from 1755 to
1822 were in 1755, nineteen and ten; in 1765, four and six; in 1775,
twenty-one and twenty-four; in 1785, eighteen and twenty-nine; in
1795, twenty-nine and seventeen; in 1805, forty-two and twenty-six;
and in 1815, fifty-one and thirty-six. From 1822 to 1872 there were
three sides (denoted by _C_, _BD_, _A_): the normal entries on these
were in 1825, forty-two, fifty-five, forty-one; in 1835, forty,
forty-five, fifty-three; in 1845, fifty, sixty-eight, forty-nine; in
1855, fifty-three, forty-eight, fifty; and in 1865, fifty-eight,
nineteen, sixty. Since 1872 there have been four sides (denoted by
_C_, _B_, _D_, _A_) which were made approximately equal: the normal
entries on these were in 1875, forty-one, forty, forty-four, forty; in
1885, forty-nine, forty-four, forty-five, forty-eight; in 1895,
forty-eight, thirty-eight, fifty, fifty-one; and in 1905, fifty,
fifty-three, fifty, fifty-seven.
Until 1755 the number of pupils in residence in any one term assigned
to an individual tutor was not large, and a tutor interested in any
particular aspect of a subject likely to be studied was generally
available: hence it was usually possible for a tutor to give
personally the teaching and guidance required by his pupils. There
were then no lecture-rooms in College, so probably all instruction was
given in the tutor's rooms and was informal in character. With the
establishment in 1755 of sides, this system of teaching required
modification, and in the course of the latter half of the eighteenth
century it became the custom for a tutor to supplement his teaching by
the services of another fellow or other fellows. These officers, known
as Assistant-Tutors, were appointed and paid by individual tutors;
they lectured regularly, took an important part in the life of the
Society, and occupied a recognized position.
A marked development of the system of formal lectures is indicated by
the erection in 1835 of a block of four large and four medium-sized
lecture-rooms. No other important changes were made for another thirty
years, and until 1868 instruction remained normally organized by
sides; indeed it was only by arrangement that lectures on one side
were open to men on the other sides, though in fairness it must be
added that an arrangement for throwing them open was made as a matter
of course whenever it seemed desirable. The retention to so late a
date of appointments by sides was due to the fact that the finances of
the four sides were then kept as separate accounts.
This scheme, clumsy and illogical though it was, might have worked
fairly well as long as the great majority of honour men read nothing
but mathematics, classics, and perhaps theology, but it was condemned
by the fact that the authorities allowed it to be superseded in
practice by an elaborate system of private tuition paid for by the
individual students. With the introduction of new subjects (like law,
history, and various branches of science) and the development of the
corresponding triposes, it became necessary to recast the scheme of
teaching if adequate college instruction on such subjects was to be
provided. The earliest appointment of a college lecturer (as
contrasted with an assistant-tutor nominally attached to a particular
side) was made in 1868, his lectures being open to all students of
the Society, and his stipend not charged on the funds of a particular
side. This was soon followed by the placing of all educational
appointments and finance in the hands of the College without regard to
sides; and shortly afterwards the lecture-room accommodation was
considerably extended.
About this time a further step was taken by throwing most of the
advanced lectures open to members of other colleges. Thus in a few
years instruction by tutorial sides was replaced by college lectures
and class-work, and then this, to a large extent, by teaching
organized on a university basis, supplemented by individual and
catechetical instruction in college: with this, the custom of using
private tuition has largely disappeared. Ultimately the title of
assistant-tutor was dropped; the last appointment under that title was
made in 1885, but from about 1870 we may say that practically the
duties of an assistant-tutor were those of a lecturer. Thenceforth
tutors also took their share of lecturing on subjects connected with
their own lines of study, and did not confine their instruction to
their own pupils, though for a year or two lectures on elementary
mathematics and classics to freshmen on each particular side survived
as a historic curiosity. These changes led to the existing scheme
under which tutorial and tuition duties are separated, and thus the
giving of direct instruction to his pupils is not now necessarily
part of the duties of a tutor.
The sequence of tutors on each side has been published, and I am
sorely tempted to add various anecdotes on the way in which some of
these officers fulfilled their duties, but such additions lie outside
the object of this essay.
Of course during this long period there have been bad as well as good
tutors, but I think everyone will admit that on the whole the system
has worked well. Its special characteristic is a personal relation
between the tutor and the pupil, materially strengthened by constant
intercourse and by the fact that practically all the correspondence
with the parents of the pupil passes through the hands of the tutor:
experience shows that the tutorial influence has not been weakened by
the fact that in most cases direct instruction is now given by other
lecturers.
[Footnote 17: The history of the University prior to 1546 covers some
three centuries and a half, that is, about as long a period as has
elapsed since 1546.]
CHAPTER III.
THE WESTMINSTER SCHOLARS.
The relations between Trinity College and Westminster School have
always been of an intimate character. Under the Elizabethan statutes
of the two foundations a limited number of boys from the school were
entitled, if duly qualified, to election to scholarships at Trinity,
and later an attempt was made to extend the privilege to fellowships.
The whole matter is now one of ancient history, but it may be
interesting to put on record some of the facts connected with it.
The school at Westminster owes its foundation to queen Elizabeth. Of
course the abbey is many centuries older, and in a sense so is the
school, for a grammar-school (in addition to the choir-school) had
been attached to the medieval monastery, though doubtless it existed
only at the pleasure of the monks. When Henry VIII created the diocese
of Westminster with the former abbey as its cathedral, he also
established a school connected with it. The diocese soon disappeared,
and later the church and buildings were given by queen Mary to the
Benedictines. The arrangement made by Mary was in turn annulled by
Elizabeth, who, shortly after her succession founded the collegiate
Church of St Peter, divided into two branches, one ecclesiastical and
the other scholastic, the whole being placed under the rule of the
dean and chapter. Thus Elizabeth is rightly designated as the founder
of the present school, though a link with the past has been preserved
in the fact that the sequence of headmasters dates by custom from
1540. The buildings were divided between the two sides of the College;
for the scholastic side, one part of the monastic dormitory was made
into a school-room, the granary was turned into a school dormitory,
and the boys were allowed the use of the refectory for meals.
The queen interested herself in the school she had established; its
connection with particular colleges at the universities was suggested
by the precedents of Winchester and Eton, and it was natural that she
should desire to associate it closely with the Houses at Cambridge and
Oxford which had been founded by her father. There is some reason to
think that the details of the arrangement made were due to Bill, the
first dean of Westminster, who was at the same time master of Trinity
and provost of Eton; a fortunate pluralist!
On 29 March 1560, Elizabeth gave new statutes to Trinity College,
Cambridge, and in statute 13, dealing with the sixty-two scholars of
the College, she directed as follows:
Sumantur autem potissimum et eligantur ex eorum numero, si modo
idonei et ceteris pares reperiantur qui Schola Regia Westmonasterii
educati ... sint.... Ex aliis regni partibus ac locis indifferenter
ad numerum supplendum qui maxime idonei videbuntur, semper sumantur.
In June 1560, she gave statutes to the Collegiate Church at
Westminster, and in statute 6, dealing with the forty scholars of the
school, she directed that three scholars from the school should be
elected annually to the foundation of Christ Church, Oxford, and three
to that of Trinity College, Cambridge. It is said that the queen did
not ratify these statutes. Be this as it may, in the following year,
on 11 June 1561, she sent to Trinity College letters patent referring
to the Westminster statutes as indicating her wishes in the matter,
and expressing her desire that the Society should select as many
scholars from Westminster as was possible. This then was the position
in 1561, and it was recognised these letters were binding and
conferred rights on duly qualified Westminster scholars.
Throughout the three centuries of the existence of these rights,
candidates usually preferred the Christ Church studentships, which,
being tenable under certain conditions for life, were much more
valuable than Trinity scholarships, since the latter ran out in less
than seven years. Perhaps too the boys were attracted to Christ Church
rather than to Trinity by the fact that there they formed a larger
proportion of the whole Society than in Henry's foundation by the Cam.
Further a boy elected to Christ Church entered sooner into the
emoluments of his studentship than a boy elected to Trinity--the
latter not being admitted to his scholarship until the next annual
election of scholars which took place in the following spring, usually
some six months after he had commenced residence.
There were only forty scholars at Westminster and a provision for the
election from them every year of six scholars to the two universities
was more than ample. Thus in 1561 one scholar was elected to each
university, during each of the six following years, 1562-67, two
scholars were elected to each university, in 1568, six scholars were
for the first time presented, and each university took three. In 1569
the school again presented three boys for election at Trinity, but the
master, Whitgift, refused to elect more than two, alleging that there
were not vacancies in the House for more than that number. Thereon the
scholar or his friends appealed to Sir William Cecil, the chancellor
of the University. Correspondence ensued, but the Society refused to
give way on the particular election. On the general question the
College addressed a letter[18], dated 3 July 1569, to Cecil
entreating him to interpose with the queen to lighten the burden
imposed on Trinity by the royal statutes, and asserting that the
Westminster scholars took up so many places as to act to the detriment
of other and more worthy students. The crown assented to this
proposal, and it was agreed that thenceforth three scholars should be
chosen every third year, and not necessarily more than two in the
other years.
This arrangement lasted but a short time, for a year or two later,
perhaps in 1575, Goodman, dean of Westminster, petitioned[19] the lord
treasurer to confirm or re-enact the original statutes whereby three
Westminster scholars were to be elected each year to each of the two
universities. The petition was granted, and, I conjecture, was the
occasion of the letters patent sent by the queen on 7 February 1576,
to Trinity College, Cambridge, and Christ Church, Oxford, wherein she
repeated and explained her former injunctions. In these letters she
stated that Westminster scholars were not to be allowed to remain at
the school after attaining the age of eighteen, and in regard to their
coming to one of the universities she directed:
Quamvis cupimus plurimos e nostris Discipulis Westmonasterii ad
Academias in dicta Collegia quotannis promoveri, tamen ne incertus
sit omnino numerus, sex ad minimum, videlicet, tres in Ecclesiam
Christi Oxonii et tres in Collegium Trinitatis, singulis annis, si
aut tot loca vacua ... aut tot idonei e nostris Discipulis
Westmonasterii reperti fuerint, admitti volumus; Plures autem
optamus, si ita praefatis Electoribus commodum videbitur.
In fact, however, the former custom of electing three scholars every
third year and two scholars in each of the other years continued until
1588 after which it became usual, though the custom was not
invariable, to elect at least three scholars to each university each
year. During the forty-seven years from 1561 to 1607 inclusive, one
hundred and thirteen scholars in all were elected from Westminster to
Trinity, of whom forty became fellows.
In 1603 James I came to the throne. He interested himself in the
school and was prepared to intervene in its interests or what he
regarded as such. The earliest case of difficulty in the new reign
occurred at the election in 1604 when the king directed the master of
Trinity, Nevile, to whom in fact he was under some obligations, to
take a boy, by name Albert Moreton, as one of the scholars of
Trinity[20]. The boy was ignorant, and Nevile politely but definitely
refused to accept him. The matter was not urged further, and though on
some occasions later the Trinity electors consented under pressure to
alter the order in which candidates were elected, their right to
reject on the ground of ignorance was not again disputed. Three years
later, the College was faced by a more serious question concerning its
connection with Westminster.
In 1607, James I addressed letters patent to Trinity College, in which
after referring to the letters patent already mentioned, he ordered
them to be strictly observed, and intimated that thereafter the
scholars of Trinity should be taken chiefly from Westminster school if
duly qualified. He then continued that he observed that the scholars
who had been elected to Christ Church were notable for their learning
and subsequent distinction, and regretted that this was not so in the
case of the scholars elected to Trinity, a fact which he attributed to
their want of succession to fellowships and to their leaving the
University as soon as they had taken the degree of master. Accordingly
he ordered that Westminster scholars at Trinity who had taken the
bachelor's degree should, unless deficient in learning or good
conduct, be promoted to fellowships in preference to other candidates.
He further ordered that any Westminster scholar in the College, who
had not been admitted to a fellowship before taking a master's degree,
might remain resident an additional two years during which time he
should be eligible to a fellowship, subject to lawful exceptions. The
letters are dated 27 June 1607, but it would appear that they were not
presented until September of that year.
Deep resentment was felt at this order, for Trinity attached great
importance to the desirability of electing as fellows the best
candidates, though it was admitted that candidates from places where
the House had property had statutable claims for special
consideration. The College took immediate steps to protect itself, and
in support of its position addressed to the chancellor of the
University, the earl of Salisbury, a petition accompanied by a
reasoned memorandum. These documents are not dated, but I think may be
assigned to the Michaelmas term, 1607.
The petition is briefly to beg the chancellor to assist the College in
obtaining a review of the letters patent with the object of
maintaining its ancient privileges and former liberties; the letters
patent being said to be contrary to the intentions of its founder, and
to its statutes[21]. The wording is humble and courtly.
The memorandum that accompanied the petition is more outspoken. It is
long, but it is so interesting that I shall venture to quote from or
describe it at length. I conjecture that it was composed by Nevile.
It contains fourteen assertions or arguments to the following effect:
1. It is inconvenient that so large a College as Trinity should be
restrained unto a particular School, and it can be easily shown that
other Schools have furnished Trinity with students of much better
hope and proof than Westminster hath done or is likely to do, for
the whole number of Westminster boys who are eligible to both
Universities are but forty, and there are seldom more than eight or
nine candidates for the six vacancies at the two Universities.
2. To alter or subvert the ancient liberties of one of the chiefest
Colleges in Christendom and to divert from the uses intended by his
Majesty's Predecessors a foundation like Trinity in order to satisfy
private humour or under the pretence of benefitting an ordinary
School is a great indignity to his Majesty's Sacred Person, Power,
and Prerogative.
3. The suggestion that boys coming to Trinity do not become Fellows,
Doctors, Deans, and Bishops as do boys entering Christ Church is
untrue, frivolous, and unfair: it is untrue, because, in fact, of
the existing sixty Fellows of the College, more than one-sixth have
come from Westminster, and at Trinity the custom is to prefer the
worthy: it is frivolous, for the fact of a man having once been at
school at Westminster is not the cause of his advancement to the
position of a Doctor, Dean, or Bishop: and it is unfair, "for
although Christ Church in Oxford be a most magnificent and royal
foundation, and hath bred in all ages as learned, wise, and worthy
prelates as the kingdom hath, yet Trinity College in Cambridge hath
had no less royal founders, and if we fail in our Westminster brood
(as otherwise I hope we do not) either the defect hath been in
themselves or else (which rather we suppose) it may be imputed to
those good means the other College hath, being also a Cathedral
Church and having Cannons both richly beneficed and highly dignified
which doth enable them to Doctorships, Deaneries, and Bishopricks--a
great blessing of God that our poor College wanteth."
4. "Howbeit in that kind of fruitfulness we also are not destitute
of God's gracious blessing; for ... besides Doctors in all faculties
to the number at the least of sixty, Deans to the number of eleven,
Publick Professors to the number of ten, the two Archbishops,
Canterbury and York, the most Reverend Fathers Whitgift and Hutton,
and seven other principal Prelates of this kingdom, namely, Fletcher
of London, Still of Bath and Wells, Babington of Worcester, Redman
of Norwich, Rud of St Davids, Bennet of Hereford, and Gouldesborough
of Gloucester, all of them simul et semel Bishops of this kingdom
... are such a demonstrative instance as we think no other College
in either University can afford the like--and not one of these
chosen out of Westminster School."
5. "It is to be doubted whether there can be the like success if our
Elections out of a private School shall be indubitate and certain;
we rather think there can be no readier means to make Droanes and
Loyterers in Colleges, nor any worse prejudice or more deadly bane
unto learning and vertue, then when the rewards, and means thereof
are tyed to persons, times, and places, and made regular and
certain."
6. The proposal would do a grave injustice to other students who
might be men of great abilities.
7. The proposal would defeat the express wishes of Henry VIII,
Edward VI, Mary, and Elizabeth, all of whom are to be reckoned as
founders as well as benefactors of Trinity College.
8 and 9. The proposal would be contrary to the existing statutes of
the College, and to the oaths taken by the Master and Fellows on
admission.
10. Preferences of this character are injurious to the particular
School, the College, and the whole University, and a constant source
of discord and contention.
11. "It is also against the Policy and common-wealth of a kingdom to
restrain and abridge places and preferments originally meant,
founded, and hitherto with good success employed for the common
benefit of that kingdom to a private School: for benefits and
privileges are to be amplified and not restrained; publick rewards
are not to be applied to private places, purposes, or respects."
12. Interference with the intentions and directions, of previous
benefactors is contrary to public policy, and tends to prevent
future benefactions.
13. This implies that Nevile had accepted the office of master of
Trinity College under promises which rendered it inequitable that
the college statutes should, during his tenure of the post, be
altered against his wishes, but it is stated that this argument,
though noted, is not to be pressed.
14. This raises some technical points, especially as to whether
statutes of a College given under the great seal can be varied by
letters patent without explicit reference to the clauses altered or
repealed.
The memorandum concludes with a request that the College may have
liberty to ask the opinion of the Judges on the questions raised,
and thus obtain the benefit of the king's "most equal just and
princely laws."
The use of the personal pronoun in one or two cases and the reference
in the thirteenth paragraph to Nevile suggest that the document was
composed by him. I cannot find out anything about the result of the
petition, but I conjecture that nothing came of it. Nevile however was
not inclined to let the matter rest, and no doubt the esteem felt for
him at court and his personal popularity were of great assistance to
the Society in the negotiations that followed.
It was a few months later, in May 1608, at the annual election of
scholars at Westminster that Nevile took the next step in defence of
the college position. The following account of the election is based
on a paper preserved at Westminster:
The Master of Trinity College (Nevile) refused to take the oath
which was required, previously to the election, by the Law of the
land as well as by the local Statutes. He also refused to elect to
his College the three Scholars ordered by the Letters Patent of the
Crown. The oath however was taken by the Dean of Westminster (Neile)
and the Dean of Christ Church (King), as well as by their
assistants, and by the Master of the School (Ireland). The Dean of
Westminster then demanded, in writing, that the election should
proceed; when the Master of Trinity College referred to some
composition by which he stated he would be governed. To this the
Dean of Westminster replied, that he knew of no such composition,
and that, if it had existed, it was necessarily set aside by the
Letters Patent of Queen Elizabeth and of His Majesty; whereon the
Master of Trinity College observed, though with much protestation of
his loyalty, that he did not allow the validity of the Letters
Patent.
The other Electors, however, having agreed to proceed, the nine
Scholars who had been examined were called in to hear the Statute
read for the election to the two Colleges. The Master of Trinity
then said that he had not places enough vacant in his College. [In
fact in April he and the Seniority had filled up all scholarships
then vacant and pre-elected men to succeed to scholarships as
vacancies occurred.] To this it was replied, that the want of
vacancies had been occasioned by pre-elections of supernumerary
Scholars, that the words of the Statute were disjunctive, and there
was a clause commanding such Scholars to be received if they were
fit. The Master of Trinity College did not deny the fitness of the
candidates, but still refused to elect. In this wrangling the whole
morning was wasted.
At length they went to dinner. After this, a fear having been
expressed, that this "distraction" might become troublesome to their
friends, "perhaps to His Majesty," and "not without some obloquy" to
themselves, the Master of Trinity College proposed a private
settlement, naming October for it. The suggestion was favourably
received by the Electors other than the Dean of Westminster. The
latter however affirmed, that with his consent less than three
Scholars should never be taken by Trinity College and three by
Christ Church if the School produced so many fit Scholars: and as to
that part of the Letters Patent, which related to the election of
Westminster Scholars at Trinity College to Fellowships, he required
that they should be taken in preference to others, if their
qualifications were equal; stating at the same time, that the clause
declaring them eligible to Fellowships two years after their degree
of A.M. had arisen solely from the practice of pre-electing so many
Fellows, that for three or four years together no election took
place; and the Westminster Scholars at Trinity College were driven
out to seek a better fortune elsewhere. The Master of Trinity
College allowed that the practice of pre-elections was wrong; and it
was at length agreed that if this were discontinued, that part of
the King's Letters concerning the eligibility of Westminster
Scholars two years after their degree of A.M. should not be urged
against the local statute of Trinity College, _De Gradibus
Suscipiendis_. Thereupon the Master of Trinity College took for his
College as Scholars three candidates, to wit, Hacket, Shirley, and
Herbert.
The three scholars so taken obtained fellowships in due course, Hacket
became chaplain to James I, Charles I, and later to Charles II,
suffered cruel persecution under the commonwealth, and at the
restoration was made bishop of Lichfield: the Bishop's Hostel was
erected at his cost. An incident in Shirley's career is chronicled
below (see p. 223). Herbert was the well-known poet and divine. If the
above account is reliable, and there is no reason to doubt its
accuracy, the most important question in dispute, namely the
preferential right of Westminsters to election to fellowships at
Trinity, was left open. Nevile however had no intention to allow the
matter to drop, and having made his protest at Westminster, he now
secured the good services of his friend and Cambridge contemporary,
Richard Bancroft, archbishop of Canterbury, who undertook to act as
mediator in drawing up a "friendly and full" settlement of the
question.
An agreement, drafted I feel confident by Nevile, was submitted to the
archbishop and, after he had made a few alterations, was accepted by
the dean and chapter of Westminster. The seniority of Trinity College,
on 5 September 1608, passed a minute that the matter "be referred to
our Master against the 13^th of October," and the deed is so dated,
but its execution must have been delayed since there is a minute of
the seniority, 8 December 1608, ordering that the composition with
Westminster should be engrossed and sealed at the audit so as to be
delivered before 1 February 1609.
The deed embodying this agreement was made between the dean and
chapter of Westminster and Trinity College, and provided that the
College should take yearly three scholars from Westminster School to
be scholars of the College, and that there should be no pre-elections
of supernumerary fellows to the prejudice of the Westminster scholars
if deserving of fellowships. In consideration of these definite
obligations the dean and chapter of Westminster agreed that the
letters patent of 1607 should never be urged against the College by
the dean and chapter or the schoolmaster or ushers or scholars of
Westminster, and that the College should have such full power to elect
fellows as had been previously enjoyed, excepting only the practice of
pre-elections. To the deed is appended a statement that it was made
with the privity and approbation of the archbishop of Canterbury, the
earl of Salisbury (lord high treasurer of England and chancellor of
the University of Cambridge), and of the earl of Northampton (the lord
privy seal), all of whom signed it. This conclusion of the affair may
be regarded as a personal triumph for Nevile.
The arrangement was submitted to the king who in a letter directed to
the College approved it, but required that the Westminster scholars
each year should be granted seniority over other scholars of Trinity
of their year and not be hindered by pre-elections: he did not however
withdraw or rescind the previous letters patent. I have never seen the
text of this letter but its contents are indisputable, and there are
various subsequent references to it. The obligation to allow this
seniority to the Westminster scholars was henceforth recognized by the
College as binding on it.
The advisers of Trinity seem to have been doubtful whether it would be
admitted that this second letter implied the rescission of the letters
of 1607, and since there was every reason to avoid raising the
question whether royal letters or mandates could be set aside or
modified by private arrangements, it was wise to let matters run on as
long as the agreement of 1608 was carried out by the school
authorities. There is however a memorandum, ascribed to January 1610
in the State Papers, showing that "the recent grant by the King for
the students of Trinity College, Cambridge, to be chosen from the
Westminster scholars is prejudicial to the interests of Trinity,"
which seems to imply that further negotiations took place. I have not
seen the memorandum and know nothing more about this than here
appears.
During the sixteen years following this settlement, that is, from 1608
to 1623 inclusive, fifty-eight scholars were elected from Westminster
to Trinity, of whom sixteen became fellows.
In 1623-24 a fresh dispute occurred. It would appear that while
Trinity carried out its undertaking relating to the election of
scholars from Westminster, it again began to pre-elect fellows with
the object, it was said, of preventing any claim being made on behalf
of the Westminster scholars in residence. Whether this was done in
self-protection against unjustifiable claims or was a deliberate
breach of the agreement of 1608 we do not know. An appeal to the crown
on behalf of the school ensued, and on 7 September 1623, the king sent
letters patent to the College as follows:
Trusty and well beloved we greet you well. Being much interested in
the prosperity and well-fare of that our College which is both our
immediate Foundation and the fairest in all our kingdoms, and
furnished, for the most part with the extracions of our own
free-school at Westminster, we cannot but be very sensible of any
alteration in the government of the same.
Whereas therefore we are given to understand that younger students
of that College have of late years been totally disheartened in
their studies by a new and unwarrantable device of pre-electing more
Fellows than there are places vacant at the time of that Election
and the Scholars of our own School (in whose loyalty and affection
we are so much interested from their cradles) strangely discouraged
and disgraced by being cast in their seniority behind all the
Scholars and Fellows in their several Elections though never so
exceeding in learning and education, we straightly will and require
you that from this time forward ye do forbear all manner of
pre-elections whatsoever as the pest and bane of all learning and
succession; and that also you bear that regard and respect to the
Scholars of that our own Royal School in giving them in all such
elections respect and precedency which we are informed they fully
deserve before all other of what country soever. Lastly, whereas we
are given to understand that heretofore a corrupt custom hath crept
into that our College of turning elections into particular
nominations of the Master and the several Seniors which smells
altogether of partialitie and corruption we do straightly will and
require you the said Master of our College of whom we conceive a
very good opinion, to see that hereafter all elections as well of
Scholars as of Fellows be done according to the local statutes of
your College and carried about with that pluralitie of voices
therein required.
What reply (if any) the College made or could make I do not know, but
presumably the answer was not satisfactory as these letters were
followed by the appointment of royal commissioners to enquire into the
Westminster elections. There is extant a letter from the master of
Trinity (Richardson) dated 9 June 1624, to one of the commissioners,
asking to be excused from attending the usual election of Westminster
scholars, on account of poor health. Probably this was regarded as an
impertinence, and he must have been reprimanded since we have a letter
dated 26 June signed by the master and six of the senior fellows,
deprecating the royal displeasure, offering the most humble
submission, promising to obey in anything that his majesty might
command, but begging that present compliance might not be drawn into
an example against the College. Richardson and James I died in March
1625, and the enquiry seems to have been then dropped.
The election in 1636 was interesting. It is said that among the
candidates was Cowley who had already written various poems and a
comedy showing distinct ability. The story runs that the boy failed
badly in grammar, and the Trinity electors, insisting that this was
conclusive, rejected him as a Westminster scholar, but offered him an
ordinary scholarship at Trinity, which he accepted. Against this are
the fact that he had been entered at Trinity as a pensioner in April,
a few weeks before the election at Westminster, and the improbability
that the electors would have drawn such a distinction between
Westminster and other scholars of the House. Still old-time anecdotes
are not to be lightly rejected: at any rate Cowley came into residence
in due course and was made a scholar in the same term as the four boys
taken from Westminster by the electors, these five students being the
only scholars elected by the College in 1637.
During the seventy-seven years from 1624 to 1700 inclusive, three
hundred and fifty-six scholars were elected from Westminster to
Trinity, of whom one hundred and twenty-six became fellows. During the
fifty years, 1701 to 1750, out of one hundred and eighty-seven
Westminster scholars at Trinity sixty-two became fellows; during the
fifty years, 1751 to 1800, out of one hundred and eighty, thirty
became fellows; and during the fifty-six years, 1801 to 1856, out of
one hundred and seventy, four became fellows. Throughout this long
period the friendly relations between the College and the school
suffered no change.
In 1727 there was a curious echo of the controversy of 1607. A strange
suggestion had been made, apparently with the tacit approval of the
authorities of Westminster, that new statutes should be given to
Trinity constituting the dean and chapter of Westminster Visitors of
the College, and it was decided by the advocates of the movement to
open the campaign by asking the dean of Westminster to call the
attention of the master of Trinity (Bentley), to the "Letters Anno
Quinto Jacobi Primi." Bentley replied on 5 March 1727, denied their
validity and argued that even if originally valid, they could not be
pressed after more than a century during which time "they had never
been acted upon": he added that, if antiquated letters were still
binding, there were various matters in which he had powers, whose
exercise might prove singularly inconvenient to those who had raised
the question. This was really conclusive, but further consideration
had shown the inherent weakness or folly of the original idea, and the
chapter was wise enough to proceed no further with the matter.
Shortly afterwards, probably at the following election at Westminster,
Bentley is said to have referred to the dean's communication, and
remarked that the authority of the letters of 1607 would doubtless
have seemed stronger, at any rate to the dean's predecessor
(Atterbury), if not to the chapter, could they have been described as
"Anno Primo Jacobi Tertii"--an irrelevant remark, but it carried a
sting, for Atterbury's devotion to the cause of the Pretender was
deeply resented by the government.
From an unknown date until the early years of the nineteenth century,
Westminster scholars at Trinity were allowed the privilege of wearing
academic gowns of a cut different from those of other undergraduates
and further distinguished by having on the sleeves a violet button
with a silk loop. The gowns of all pensioners in the University were
then black and (except for those worn by Westminsters) cut to a
common pattern. The Westminster distinction was discontinued when the
present system of different gowns for different Colleges was
introduced.
During the first half of the nineteenth century the numbers in the
school fell seriously, and well-founded complaints were made about the
standard of scholarship attained by the scholars elected to the
universities. In 1856, as the result of negotiations, initiated by
Whewell, the arrangements with Trinity were completely recast, and it
was agreed on 5 December 1856 that the school should abandon the right
of Westminster boys to election to scholarships at Trinity, and that
in filling up open emoluments in Trinity, former Westminster boys
should enjoy no preference. In consideration of this release, the
Society undertook to establish at its own cost, exhibitions, not more
than three to be awarded each year, for boys elected from the school
who were otherwise qualified for admission to the College; every such
exhibitioner, if so deserving, to be eligible for a college
scholarship tenable with the exhibition. This was approved by the
queen in council on 25 June 1857. It was further agreed that the
Westminster exhibitioners were to be placed on the same footing as
exhibitioners elected by open competition before commencing
residence. The mode of election is settled by the school statutes, but
it would seem that the Trinity electors have no right to demand
intellectual attainments beyond those required at the time for
admission to the College. The exhibitions are not now confined to
scholars of the school.
So ends the story of Westminster Scholars at Trinity College,
Cambridge. During the two hundred and ninety-six years from 1561 to
1856 inclusive, one thousand and sixty-four scholars had been elected
from Westminster to Trinity (or say 3.6 a year), of whom two hundred
and seventy-eight (or say one in four) had become fellows. In
conclusion I may add that in 1869 in virtue of the powers given by the
Public Schools Act, 1868, the dean and chapter of Westminster, the
dean of Christ Church, Oxford, and the master of Trinity College,
Cambridge, created a new Governing Body in whom the governance of the
school has been since vested.
[Footnote 18: See _Life of Whitgift_ by J. Strype, London, 1718,
pp. 13, 14 and Appendix, pp. 7, 8.]
[Footnote 19: _Life of Whitgift_ by J. Strype, London, 1718, Appendix,
p. 9.]
[Footnote 20: _State Papers_, Domestic, 1604, p. 185.]
[Footnote 21: According to Dean Peacock, royal letters and orders, at
variance with college statutes, were binding only if explicitly or
tacitly accepted by the Society. That may have been technically
correct, but it is very doubtful if Tudor or Stuart sovereigns would
have admitted it.]
CHAPTER IV.
THE SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY
TO UNDERGRADUATES.
This is an account of a famous struggle some eighty years ago between
the authorities and the undergraduates of Trinity College on the
subject of attendance at chapel. The story is not to the credit of the
authorities, but, for what it is worth, here it is.
There is a prelude to it concerned with a controversy in 1834 between
Thirlwall, later the statesman-bishop of St David's, and Wordsworth,
then master of the House, which raised the question of the
advisability of compelling undergraduates to be present at religious
services in College. At that time regular attendance at chapel was
required--as for centuries previously it had been--from all students
as a matter of discipline, and the rule in force on the subject was
embodied in a college order of 22 April 1824, as follows:
Agreed by the Master and Seniors that every Undergraduate not having
an aegrotat or dormiat do attend Morning Chapel five times at the
least in every week, or four times at the least including Sunday;
and the same number of times in the Evening, under penalty that the
week in which anyone shall not have so attended be not reckoned
towards keeping the Term of such Undergraduate--unless such omission
be repaired by extra attendance the week following.
Absentees were punished, and those who offended frequently were liable
to expulsion.
Until the era of the Reform Bill some regulation like this was
accepted as a matter of course, but when, in that period of enquiry,
all things were put to the proof, doubts as to its wisdom began to be
voiced. In 1834 Thirlwall, then assistant-tutor to Whewell, in an open
letter dated 21 May, while advocating the admission of dissenters to
the University, lamented the constant repetition in college chapels of
a mechanical service, believing the practice to be detrimental to the
interests of religion: he further expressed the opinion that
attendance at chapel services should be voluntary. He referred to a
then recent statement by Wordsworth in which the latter had said "the
alternative is not here between compulsory religion (as it is called)
and any other religion, but between compulsory religion and no
religion at all," and on this remarked:
I cannot indeed draw such delicate distinctions as my friend seems
to make in this passage; for as the epithet compulsory applied to
religion appears to me contradictory, the difference between a
compulsory religion and no religion at all is too subtle for my
grasp. But if for _religion_ we substitute the word _service_,
which would probably better express his meaning, then I should quite
agree with him, that, in this case, a voluntary service would soon
be changed into no service at all: that is, the persons who are now
compelled to attend, if they were left at liberty, would stay away.
And this is the very reason why I think it would be better that they
should be allowed to do so.
The argument was amplified in a second letter dated 13 June. This was
skilful enough as a piece of dialectics though hardly likely to
convince opponents.
That an officer of the college should express such views and in this
way was regarded by Wordsworth as scandalous, and five days after the
publication of the first letter, without asking for any explanation,
he, with the consent or approval of Whewell and the two deans (Thorp
and Carus), removed Thirlwall from his office of assistant-tutor. This
arbitrary act was generally resented in the Society even by those who
disagreed with Thirlwall or thought that he had been indiscreet in his
advocacy; some too considered the act unstatutable, but Thirlwall
refused to appeal to the Visitor, and shortly afterwards left
Cambridge on his appointment, in November 1834, by the lord
chancellor, to the important living of Kirby-under-dale in Yorkshire.
Two years later, in 1836, while the matter was still a subject of
debate, Carus was made senior dean. He was a kindly man, leader in
the University of the school of thought associated with Simeon's name,
but, whether rightly or wrongly, was regarded as unsympathetic by
those who did not think as he did on religious questions. Carus
detested the view taken by Thirlwall, and far from conciliating
college opinion, which had been outraged by Wordsworth's action, urged
the seniority (a Board consisting of the master and the eight senior
resident fellows to which, under the Elizabethan statutes, the
government of the College was entrusted) to re-draft the rule of 1824
and make clear or stiffen the penalties for non-obedience. The
seniority agreed, and on 7 February 1838, issued the following order:
Agreed by the Master and Seniors, that all Undergraduate Scholars,
and Foundation Sizars do attend Chapel eight times at the least in
every week, that is twice on Sunday and once every other day; the
Scholars, on pain of losing _ipso facto_ their statutable allowance
for Commons, and such additions as have since been made by the
College in the way of augmentation to the Commons, for every week
when there has been a failure of such attendance as is above
described; and the Sizars, on pain of incurring _ipso facto_ an
equivalent deduction in money from their allowances.
Agreed also, that a like attendance be required from all other
Undergraduates; and that in case of failure, the Parties so
offending be forthwith admonished by the Deans; and if, after such
admonition, irregularity be persisted in, notice be sent by the Dean
to the Tutor, that a warning from him also may timely be given:
after which, if both these means shall fail in producing regularity,
the offender shall be reported by the Dean to the Master (or, in his
absence, to the Vice-Master) to receive a formal admonition from
him, in the presence of the Dean, a record of which shall be
preserved: and finally, in all cases where such formal admonition
shall have been incurred three times, the offender shall _ipso
facto_ be removed from the College, either entirely, or for one or
more Terms, according to the circumstances of the case; a record of
this sentence being also preserved.
Authority is given to the Deans to grant occasional leave of
absence, on special application made previously, but not otherwise.
Also on any casual failure of attendance, it is allowed to Deans to
accept (in order to make up the deficiency) an equivalent attendance
on other days during the same week only; any failure on Sundays to
be compensated by attendance twice on other days.
According to college tradition, which came to me from C.W. King, an
undergraduate of the time, a deputation of scholars, who remonstrated
on the severity of these sanctions, was informed by Carus that
attendance at chapel was not so much a duty as a privilege, which was
valued the most by those who were oldest and therefore best qualified
to form an opinion on the subject--a boomerang argument which
obviously was dangerous unless the fellows themselves attended chapel
with the regularity desired from undergraduates.
On this rebuff, certain students formed a Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Undergraduates. Its founders issued a notice asking
whether what was forced on undergraduates was practised by dons; and
that facts might speak for themselves, they announced that they would
issue marking-sheets showing the attendance week by week of the
fellows in chapel. Copies of these marking-sheets were put
(surreptitiously) on the college screens, sent to London clubs, and
widely circulated. All efforts by the deans to discover the authors or
the printer employed failed; I understand, however, that
W.J. Conybeare, G.E.L. Cotton, J.S. Howson, C.L. Rose, and C.J. Tindal
were its chief promoters, and that the printer was Metcalfe of
9 Trinity Street. Copies of these marking-sheets are now very rare,
but a few years ago one came into the market which I was fortunate
enough to secure. It is bound in blue calf, stamped with the college
arms having as supporters two undergraduates in knee breeches waving
their caps, and with the motto _Nemo me impune lacessit_.
The first sheet is for the week ending 17 February 1838, and shows the
attendances, morning and evening, of the master and the eighteen
fellows then in residence. Each of the two deans attended ten times,
but they were in a peculiar position, for it was their duty, as the
Society pointed out, to go twice a day and therefore fourteen times in
each week. Only one of the other fellows, Perry, later bishop of
Melbourne, complied with the rule imposed on undergraduates, four
fellows went only once, and four not at all. To this sheet the Society
appended the following note:
Does then this new regulation of the Master and Seniors proceed from
any religious motive? Do they practice (_sic_) what they force on
the Undergraduates? They are very regular in their attendance in
Hall, but why are their places vacant in Chapel?
The next week showed a slight improvement in the attendances. The
Society congratulated itself on this, and in some general remarks
indicated what it expected from the fellows, copying these from the
notices on the subject issued by Carus. It should be said that in the
sheets those who were ill or away from Cambridge, were marked with an
_aeg_ or _abs_, so any such explanation of the absence of the others
from chapel was impossible.
In the third week the improvement continued, and three fellows in
addition to the master and the deans complied with the rule, but this
was the high water-mark of attendance, and after all it did not come
to much. The Society expressed its gratification at this, which it was
pleased to treat as the result of its efforts, and at the same time
issued the following notice:
A prize for general regularity, and good behaviour when in Chapel,
has been instituted by the Society, who are as anxious to reward
merit as they are to punish immorality. But whilst they thus wish
to instil into the minds of the Fellows those Religious feelings
which, owing to a bad education, they may possibly be without, the
Society most distinctly declare that they shall not be guided merely
by an outward show of religion. It is not, therefore, enough to go
merely eight times a week to Chapel, and when there to utter the
responses so loud as to attract attention, or otherwise disturb the
prayers of Undergraduates. Such conduct will at all times be
severely punished.... For convenience of those members of Trinity
College now residing in London, six copies of this publication are
sent weekly to each of the University Clubs there.
In the fourth week, apart from the indefatigable Perry and the two
deans, no one came up to the prescribed standard. On this result the
Society remarked:
The Society regret much that during the last week great laxity has
prevailed among the Fellows in general with regard to their
attendance in Chapel. This is the more to be lamented, as they had
been for the two previous weeks so much more regular than usual.
This irregularity cannot proceed from ill health, for they have been
constantly to Hall, although they are not compelled to go there more
than five times in each week. The Society, however, still hopes that
in the ensuing week they will be able to make a more favourable
report both of their attendance in Chapel, as also of their good
conduct when there. As was before stated, any Fellow who shall,
owing to any wine-party, or other sufficient reason, be prevented
from attending, will be excused on sending a note previously to the
Secretary of the Society, and his absence will be counted as
presence. [The last seven words were a quotation from a note by
Carus.] It is agreed by the Master and Seniors that all
Undergraduates do go eight times at least each week! Why then do
they not set us a better example?
These publications were widely disseminated and led to the production
of a number of epigrams and lampoons which were scattered broadcast
in the University. The Society appended to this sheet a note that its
members had "_no connexion whatever_ with _any_ of those abusive and
profane publications which have been so industriously circulated
during the last two weeks."
The sheet for the week ending 17 March, announced the success of the
movement, though in this return only Carus and Perry came up to the
standard. Appended to the sheet were the following notes:
The Society in laying the first list of this month before the
public, have much reason to be pleased with the success of the work
which they have undertaken, for they have been informed, on very
good authority, that the Cruelty System will not be continued more
than a week longer, but that the Master and Seniors have determined
to come to a new Agreement about Chapels.... If this should be the
case, the end which the Society had in view will be accomplished,
and the weekly publications will be discontinued, until called again
into life by some new act of Cruelty upon the much enduring
Undergraduates, but not otherwise. The Fellows have been very
irregular during the last week, in their attendance at Chapel; so
much so that only two of the whole number in residence have kept the
number, which the Undergraduates are compelled to keep, on pain of
being _ipso facto_ rusticated, either entirely, or for one or more
terms. And yet one Member of Trinity College was really sent away
during the past week (who had always been seven times each week
before) because he had the courage to object to compulsory
attendance at Chapel, especially from those men who had set him such
an example!
In the course of the next week a printed notice appeared on the
screens reducing the number of compulsory attendances in chapel to two
on Sundays and four during the week. The paper, type, and setting look
as if this were issued by the authorities. I have, however, seen a
contemporary letter in which it is said that this notice was in fact a
forgery: the suggestion being that the men were tired of the joke, and
invented this way of terminating the episode. I cannot say whether the
deans modified their rule, and the question of the genuineness of this
notice must be left undecided. It is true that no extant minute of the
seniority exists about any new regulation, but the records of the
proceedings of that body are so imperfect that no conclusion can be
drawn from this.
The Society in publishing its last sheet, namely, that for the week
ending 24 March, concluded with the following class list and notes:
The examination of the Fellows is now finished: and in arranging the
different classes the Secretary has attached to each person's name
his number of marks, in order to do away with any appearance of
favour shewn more to one than another, as is too often the case in
other Examinations.
=First Class.=
*Carus 72
Perry 66
*Barnes 50
=Second Class.=
Heath 42
Wordsworth Senior 38
Thorp 35
Whewell 34
Blakesley 30
=Third Class.=
Peacock 28
Thompson 19
Brown 17
Dobson 13
Martin 12
=Last Class.=
Wordsworth Junior 9
Sedgwick 5
Field 4
Donaldson 3
Burcham 0
Walsh 0
* The two gentlemen marked with an asterisk are respectively
Senior and Junior Dean, whose duty it is to go twice every
day to Chapel.
The Prize Medal for regular attendance at chapel and good conduct
when there, has been awarded to Mr Perry, who has passed an
examination highly creditable to himself and family. He was only 18
marks below the highest number which he could possibly have gained.
It is, therefore, to be hoped Mr P. will be more regular and do
still better next term. With respect to the two Gentlemen who are
not classed, the Secretary need hardly say that he does not envy
them their feelings on the present occasion. In consequence of the
New Agreement, the Chapel Lists will _ipso facto_ be discontinued
for the future.
In the above list the master is designated as Wordsworth Senior. The
prize was awarded to Perry the future bishop, but instead of the
promised medal he was given a bible. This was secured for the College
in 1906, and now rests in our library. It is bound in calf, stamped
with the arms and supporters assumed by the Society, and bears the
inscription "From the Undergraduates of Trinity College to the Rev.
Charles Perry, M.A., as a mark of affection and esteem for the good
example which he set them and the _rest_ of the College by his
constant attendance at Chapel." I have been informed that to each of
the two fellows who did not attend at all there was sent a small bible
with an inscription therein of the Society's hope that its presence
among his books might in the future encourage him to perform tasks
which he believed to be important even though he found them
unpleasant.
The doggerel verses to which I have alluded as appearing in connection
with the struggle were, as far as I have seen them, poor stuff as
literary productions, and some were highly improper. The author of one
of the worst of them was discovered and expelled from the College,
12 March 1838. I possess copies of four or five of these productions,
their value consists entirely in giving us stories then current about
dons and things academic--stories, I may add, which appear generally
to have had no foundation in fact. The best set of verses, supposed to
be addressed on Saturday evening by a man to his bedmaker, is a parody
of Tennyson's _May Queen_. It begins: "You must mind and call me
early--call me early, d'ye hear? For I in morning chapel to-morrow
must appear," and on the whole runs easily. There is nothing in these
squibs which deserves remembrance or needs any further notice here.
There ends the story, and no comments on it or the actors in it are
needed. It may be added as a postscript, that for a long time
subsequent to this incident some attendance at chapel was required
from all who had no good reason to ask for exemption, and that as time
went on the requirements gradually grew less. The question of making
attendance at chapel compulsory on those who have not yet fully
attained years of discretion is admittedly difficult, and made more so
by the fact that while such attendance is approved and rigorously
imposed every day of the week at most public boarding schools on lads
up to the age of eighteen or nineteen, it is regarded as unthinkable
in the case of young graduates of twenty-one or so. Trinity College
finally adopted the view advocated by Thirlwall, and to-day attendance
at chapel services is voluntary.
CHAPTER V.
THE COLLEGE CHAPEL.
The College Chapel, as it appears to-day, is described in many of the
guide-books which are pressed on the casual traveller in Cambridge. I
am not here concerned with the accounts of it there given, for in this
paper I intend to deal with little beyond its history and traditions.
It is a matter of common knowledge that the present chapel was built
under the auspices of the Tudor queens, Mary and Elizabeth, on the
site of the old chapel of King's Hall. Let me begin by tracing briefly
the history of these successive buildings, and their connection with
college developments.
King's Hall owed its origin to the establishment of scholars in the
University of Cambridge by Edward II in 1317, and was put on a
permanent footing by Edward III in 1337. The original home of the
Society was a large two-storeyed house, built of wood and thatched,
bought from Robert de Croyland, and situated on the ground now
occupied by the walks and grass plot in front of the chapel. No chapel
or oratory was connected with it, and the Society worshipped in All
Saints' church which then stood on the green in Trinity Street facing
our present chapel.
In 1375 the College began the erection on the ground to the north and
west of its house of a larger building comprising a cloister court
with various extensions. The west side of this court, some hundred and
twenty feet long, is still standing and faces the bowling green: the
other three sides and the extensions have been destroyed. These
buildings were of three storeys, built of stone, brick, or rubble, and
tiled: they were finished about 1438, and the old mansion of Robert
de Croyland was then pulled down. Into the inner quadrangle of this
cloister court there projected from the middle of its western face a
wooden erection some fifteen feet long by fifteen feet wide, built in
1419-24 over what is now the junior combination room, and containing
on its upper floor an oratory which opened on to a gallery over the
cloisters on that side of the court. A list of the service-books,
plate, copes and other vestments, altar-cloths, curtains, gold
embroidery, etc., kept in this oratory in 1479 is given in my booklet
of 1917 on King's Hall. The building was small and the Society
continued to use All Saints' church for its more important services.
The desirability of having a chapel large enough for all college
purposes was obvious, and in 1464 the Society began the erection of
such a building, on ground beyond the eastern extension of the
cloister court. This new chapel, which covered part of the site of our
present chapel, was about a hundred feet long and thirty feet broad,
that is roughly half the length of and the same breadth as the present
chapel: it was built of stones, squared and supplied ready for use,
which according to Caius came from the large banqueting hall of the
Castle then being pulled down and probably by purchase from King's
College to whom these materials had been granted. It was wainscotted,
and was fitted with stalls and carved woodwork; the high altar, like
that of the older oratory, was of wood and the interior walls above
the wainscotting were plastered and whitewashed; the sum spent
suggests that the fittings were not elaborate. The work was finished
in 1499, but probably the chapel was used from 1485 onwards: of course
the plate, service-books, etc., were removed to it from the old
oratory.