Trinity College, on its foundation in 1546, naturally made use of this

chapel, for it was the only one available on the site[22] of the new

College. It is fairly certain that it was then fitted up with

additional seats and probably redecorated: the provision of a new

organ and a new lectern happen to be specifically mentioned.

Edward VI ascended the throne in 1547, and barely had the interior of

the chapel of King's Hall been adapted to the needs of the new

foundation than the College was required to remove all popish traces

from it. The altar and steps were taken down, and a communion table

set up, most likely in the middle of the chapel. The books, copes,

vestments, and altar ornaments which had come down from old times were

sold: they realized no less than £140. 8s. 8d., and the magnitude of

the sum obtained in such unfavourable conditions shows that the

services must have been conducted with considerable pomp. There is

to-day in the library a standing censer boat, ascribed to the end of

the fourteenth century or the early years of the fifteenth century,

with traces on it of its ancient gilding, but there is no record as to

how or when it came to us. King's Hall did in fact own among its

chapel vessels a "ship of silver" which probably means a censer boat,

and it may be that this is the vessel in question. With this possible

(but doubtful) exception all our medieval chapel plate has gone.

When in 1553 Mary succeeded her brother, the Roman religion was

restored, and the chapel again adapted to the old forms of worship.

Perhaps remonstrance was made by the master, Bill, who had been

appointed in 1551 on Redman's death and was a strong Anglican: at any

rate he was deprived of his office. The expulsion was dramatic and

apparently physical, for as he was sitting in his stall in the chapel

two members of the House, Mr Boys and Mr Gray, approached and "removed

him ... in a rude and insolent way." Declining any contest he retired

to Bedfordshire, and was succeeded as master by Christopherson, the

queen's chaplain and confessor.

Mary recognized the interest taken by her father in Trinity and, in

furtherance of his design, decided to rebuild the College on a

comprehensive plan. She issued orders about this on 24 October 1554,

and it was arranged in 1555 that the first large task undertaken in

connection with it should be the erection of a new chapel. Preliminary

work on this was commenced in 1556 and it was then expected that the

building would be finished by the end of 1557, but by October of that

year the walls were only half-way up: delays ensued and ten years

elapsed before the building was completed. The old chapel was unroofed

in 1561, and cannot, it would seem, have been used after that date: it

is possible it was shut up in the course of 1557, but early in that

year it was still in use, for the royal commissioners in January 1557

complained of the absence of lights on the altar and of coals to cense

the sacrament. During the years from the closing of the old chapel to

1567 it is uncertain whether the services were held in College or in

one of the town churches.

It was originally intended that the new chapel should be a hundred and

fifty-seven feet long and thirty-three feet broad, the east end being

flush with the street frontage of the Great Gate. The roof was to be

curved, open, and relieved with fretwork and oak pendants. There was

to be an east window, a west window, eleven windows on the south side,

and twelve on the north side from which it follows that it was to be

a detached building save for its abutment on staircase E in the Great

Court.

It was designed to contain two rows of stalls made after the pattern

of those at King's College, sixty-eight in the upper row with

misereres, divided by pillars, and with double crests above, and a

lower row of stalls not so divided. Unfortunately the contractor got

into money difficulties and sold much of the timber which had been

bought for the intended roof and stalls, causing the work to fall into

arrear.

After the accession of Elizabeth, changes in the plans of the new

chapel were made, the length being increased to two hundred and five

feet, thus making it project beyond the east side of the Great Court.

In 1564 the walls of the building were finished and plastered, and

the date 1564 cut on the east gable together with the text from the

Vulgate, Matthew xxi. 13, _Domus mea domus orationis vocabitur_, which

in the authorized version runs: "My house shall be called the house of

prayer" and is followed by the clause "but ye have made it a den of

thieves." Wags have sometimes continued the inscription by adding the

second clause on the chapel either of Trinity or of St John's as their

inclinations led them. The roof, put on in 1565, is of a style earlier

than this date, and Willis came to the conclusion that it is the

actual roof of the old chapel of King's Hall supplemented by

additional timber to fit it for the larger building: I like to think

that we still worship under the roof which sheltered our predecessors

more than four centuries ago.

In the year last mentioned, 1565, the stones for the pavement were

brought from Croyland Abbey and maybe some are still there. In the

next year the interior fittings were taken in hand, and the organ

screen erected. In the following year, 1567, the windows were glazed

with white glass bearing inscriptions, coats of arms, and heraldic

badges such as the fleur-de-lys, portcullis, and rose: the organ (a

small instrument) and the pulpit were moved from the old chapel, and

the stalls put in. It would seem that the wainscotting and wall-seats

in the present antechapel are of this date, and possibly came from

King's Hall. Moving from west to east in the completed building there

were in succession an antechapel sixty-five feet long, an organ-screen

eight feet deep, the chapel seats along some seventy feet, a space of

twenty-four feet, the communion table, and a space of thirty-six feet

free of encumbrances. The work was finished by Michaelmas, 1567. There

is no record of the building having been consecrated.

Mary died in 1558, and on 20 November, the Sunday following the

proclamation of Elizabeth, Bill, the former master of the College,

preached at St Paul's Cross in London; the next Sunday, his successor

Christopherson preached there. Probably the men disliked one another,

and certainly took different views of the position. Some scandal was

caused, an the upshot of the affair was that Christopherson was sent

to prison, while Bill returned to Cambridge, restored to the

mastership.

Bill, a discreet courtier, was a favourite at court, and held, under

Elizabeth's favour, the provostship of Eton and the deanery of

Westminster together with the mastership of Trinity; it was probably

due to his influence that Elizabeth in 1560 issued a commission to

procure materials and labour for completing the chapel which had been

begun on her sister's initiative. Baker praised his prudence and

temper while master, and added that "if he has shown any frailties or

failings here, allowances must be made for difficult times and potent

courtiers that are not easily resisted." In my opinion the services to

the College of its first three masters, Redman, Bill, and

Christopherson, were of the greatest value, and have hardly received

that recognition from posterity which they deserve.

On Bill's death, the crown offered the mastership to Beaumont, a

calvinist whose views were more pronounced than Cecil supposed at the

time of the appointment. Beaumont sympathized with the puritan party,

whose numbers in the University were now rapidly increasing, but did

little to guide them or to check their intolerance which constantly

offended public opinion.

The description of the windows in the new chapel does not suggest that

figures or catholic symbols appeared thereon, but, none the less, the

"malcontents" thought them objectionable and in November 1565, broke

"all the windows wherein did appear superstition." In the same term

occurred the famous surplice disturbance[23]. The puritans objected to

the use of the surplice in chapel on Sundays, Saints' days, and their

eves, and on a certain "Sunday (in Dr Whitgift's absence), Mr

Cartwright and two of his adherents made three sermons on one day in

the chapel so vehemently inveighing against the ceremonies of the

church that at evening prayer all the scholars save three [together

with one of the chaplains] (viz. Dr Leg, Mr West, Whitaker's tutor,

and the chaplain) cast off their surplices as an abominable relic of

superstition"--a curious illustration of how little the calvinists

esteemed the value of academic discipline unless they exercised it

themselves. The organization of this demonstration was attributed to

Cartwright, their leader in the University and a fellow of the

College; it was probably due to the disapproval of his conduct in this

and similar matters that shortly afterwards he went out of residence

for two or more years.

Beaumont died in 1567 and at his request was buried "with no vain

jangling of bells nor any other popish ceremonies" in the new chapel,

his being the first interment in it. He is commemorated by a carving

(somewhat difficult to detect) of his face on the tenth principal in

the chapel roof reckoned from the east end--it is lettered _R. B. Mr._

He was succeeded by Whitgift and the result of the subsequent bitter

struggle between him and the puritans settled the constitution and

policy of the University till the middle of the nineteenth century,

but the battle was mainly fought in the senate-house and in London,

and is not specially connected with our chapel.

Alterations to the organ were made in 1594, and elaborate hangings

placed in the organ loft in 1604. Thenceforward repairs and

reconstructions of the organ followed one another every few years. The

history of the instrument has been published in pamphlet form, and I

shall not again refer to its successive enlargements. The west window

was blocked up about this time owing to the removal of King Edward's

Tower to its present position.

There is an account of college doings in chapel in 1635 in the

following memorandum sent to Laud, and endorsed by him as embodying

matter which he intended to examine during an intended visit to

Cambridge in September 1636.

In Trinity College, they have been long noted to be negligent of the

chapel and of prayers in it; the best come but seldom, and by their

example the rest make small account of service. In some tutors'

chambers (who have three or four score pupils), the private prayers

are longer and louder by far at night than they are at Chapel in the

evening. Some fellows are there, who scarce see the inside of the

chapel thrice in a year, nor public hall, nor St Mary's Church, and

(they say) impugn all.

A quire is there founded for Sundays and holydays, but the quiremen

are so negligent and unskilful, that, unless it be an anthem, they

often sing the hymns no otherwise than in the common psalmerie tune.

And to mend the matter, they have divers dry choristers (as they

call them), such as never could and never meane to sing a note, and

yet enjoy, and are put in to take the benefit of those places

professedly. They have a large chapel, and yet the boyes rows of

pews are placed just in the middle of the chapel, before and behind

the Communion-table, which some there are about to reform.

They lean, or sit, or kneele at prayers, everyone in a several

posture as he pleases. At the name of Jesus few will bow, and when

the creed is repeated, many of the boyes, by some men's directions,

turn towards the west door. Their surplices and song-books, and

other furniture for divine service, is very mean. The cloth that

lies upon the table not worth 14d. He that executes, steps over the

exhortation and begins, _Wherefore I pray and beseech you, &c._ They

use no Litany for the most part, but in Lent only, and in Lent only

upon Sundays, and when they say it, it is at the Communion-table.

They repeat not the Creed after the Gospel, and instead of the

_Magnificat_ and the _Nunc Dimittis_, they will at pleasure

(sometimes when the quiremen are present) sing the 23rd or some

other riming Psalm.... They have lately taken advice, and are about

mending their chapel, if it holds.

Fellows ... (when of the degree of M.A.) and fellow-commoners, take

themselves generally to have a privilege to miss prayers, as well as

the public table of the hall. From hence it comes to pass, that so

many of that ranke are to be founde at those times, either in

taverns and towne-houses, or at some other pleasant imployments,

where they please.

Whether all this was true or not we cannot say, but at any rate in the

following year, 1636, the College spent a considerable sum on

alterations and decorations in the chapel. The communion table was

removed to the east end and the ground there raised, a pavement of

stone and marble laid down, the walls were panelled, and rich hangings

provided. Charles I, with his son the prince of Wales, visited the

chapel in March 1642, and was much pleased therewith: we read at this

time of candlesticks, tapers, and a crucifix on the altar; other

references show that the ritual was high.

The next year 1643 saw a great change, for the parliamentary party

secured control of the town and district. The order compelling the use

of the surplice on certain days was now rescinded, and under Dowsing

the chapel was purged, the altar steps levelled, the altar taken away,

and a wooden communion table without rails set up in the middle of the

chapel; the organ and hangings were removed; and certain figures,

painted on the walls at the east end whitewashed. The zealots did not

think the reforms had gone far enough, but no other changes were

forced on the College, and a few months later the Society made a money

present "to some of Major Scot's souldiers who defended the chappell

from the rudenesse of the rest." A few years later, on 12 March 1647,

Sir Thomas Fairfax then in command of the district came, and was

received "in great state ... in the Chapel, he was presented with a

rich bible, and in the hall with a sumptuous banquet"--a pleasant

combination.

At the restoration, the original altar of 1643 was recovered and

replaced at the east end, a screen of rich mosaic work erected behind

it, and as far as practicable the chapel restored to its former

appearance. Doubtless, however, practices continued which to-day would

strike us as unseemly, for I notice that in 1665 "it was agreed that

Dod have the place of keeping the dogs out of the chapel."

In the early years of the eighteenth century the condition of the

fabric caused anxiety; after only a little more than a century's wear

the roof was found to be in a dangerous condition, and a portion of

one of the external walls in danger of falling. It was determined to

place the building, inside as well as outside, in thorough repair.

Work began in 1706 and was nearly thirty years in progress. The

fellows and a few friends subscribed a large part of the cost, and the

rest was paid out of corporate income. In the plan adopted, which is

associated with the names of Bentley and Cotes, the east window was

blocked, and the present stalls, baldachino, organ-screen, and

wainscotting erected: the design of the latter is excellent of its

kind, though not altogether suited to the architecture of the

building. Some of the old stalls are said to have been removed to

St Michael's church, and the tradition may be accepted as probable.

Later in the century, 1787-88, the roof was painted in white and gold.

The number of residents in College in the early half of this century

was small, and probably the chapel was in regular use during most of

its restoration. A trivial incident at this time afforded some

amusement. Complaints had been made that Bentley--an illustrious

scholar, genuinely interested in promoting learning, but as master of

Trinity arrogant, unscrupulous, and dishonest--never went to chapel

though required to do so by the statutes. This was true enough, and he

determined to silence his critics by appearing again. But so long had

he been absent that the door of his stall had got fixed and could not

be opened till the lock had been wrenched off.

Prof. Hughes has called my attention to some unpublished notes[24] by

a friendly visitor about the chapel services on Saturday and Sunday

evenings in the fourth decade of the eighteenth century. The writer

says that interpolated in the evening prayers were elaborate musical

performances sometimes involving two symphonies[25] and two anthems

in which the choir, organ, and six violins took part; he also repeats

more than once that the building was crowded [by strangers] and the

noise so great that little of the service could be heard. Thus, to

quote one instance, under date of 28 May 1738, he writes:

This evening I was at Trinity Colledge Chapple where there was so

great a crowd that nothing could be heard of the whole service, I

could see the Readers lips go, but, not so much as heare the least

sound of his voice, and when Dr Walker read the 2d Leason could I

only heare the sound of his voice but not to distinguish one word.

There was great difference in the Musick part from what used to be,

for the symphony was first by the Organ and then by 6 violins in

3 parts to all which the Organ was the base. After the reading the

first and 2nd Lessons, 3 men sang the [blank] to which the Choire

was the Corus. Before the Prayer for the King there was another

Symphony by the Organ, & Violins, and the Anthem was Sung by one

man, to which the choir was likewise the chorus.

Throughout most of the eighteenth century, a good many of the fellows

resident in Cambridge held livings in the vicinity. They were

accustomed to ride out on Sunday to their cures, hold services, and

return home to a comfortable supper the same evening, but in general

neglected their parishes during the rest of the week. Thus if a

parishioner died, the funeral was deferred till the following Sunday;

and if a marriage-service was to be held in the village, it had to

wait for a free Sunday. In these circumstances the bride and

bridegroom often settled the matter by coming into Cambridge for the

ceremony, and during the first half of this century our chapel was

constantly borrowed for such marriage services; after the Marriage Act

of 26 George II, cap. 33, this use of it became illegal unless a

special license were obtained. Since that Act, it has been used only

once for such a purpose, namely, for the marriage of Miss Butler on

18 December 1901.

Coming to the nineteenth century, we have numerous notes about the

chapel and the services. At the beginning of this period the author of

_Alma Mater_ (J.M.F. Wright, who commenced residence in 1817) gives an

unfavourable account of the services, saying that they were gabbled

through as fast as possible amid a great deal of talking. The first

part of this statement may be correct, but as to the second probably

conversation was rare, and such as took place, though not condemned by

public opinion, was subdued and was held only in recesses, one of

which was known as iniquity corner. In fact, we may take it that the

vast majority of the undergraduates acted as gentlemen though they

attended chapel reluctantly and merely as a matter of discipline.

Attendance was required at seven o'clock in the morning, not a

convenient hour, albeit considerably later than that usual in Tudor

times.

In 1831 the fabric was again thoroughly repaired, the roof

redecorated, certain stalls elevated, desks at the east end

constructed, and a new scheme of lighting by candelabra introduced. A

few years later, in 1838, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to

Undergraduates concerned themselves with marking the attendance of

fellows in chapel. That incident I have described elsewhere.

In 1867-75 the building was again thoroughly overhauled, the south

side faced with stone, a porch, a new vestry, and a choir-room built,

the organ screen moved a few feet westward, the walls and roof

painted, gilding used freely on the panelling, the windows filled with

stained glass, backed benches and kneeling stools introduced for

undergraduates, and the building lighted with gas. During part of the

time occupied by this restoration, the College used St Michael's

church as its chapel.

According to the scheme of decoration, adopted on the advice of

Lightfoot and Westcott, if we proceed eastwards up the chapel we are

supposed to note, in order, the frescoes on the walls (which

represent old testament heroes and teachers) and paintings on the roof

(which illustrate the Benedicite), leading up through Jewish history

to the birth of Christ, and then, returning westward, to have

suggested to us, by the successive windows, the historical development

of Christianity and the growth of learning particularly in the

University and College. A man might worship many years in the chapel

before he discovered this design.

The panels in the sacrarium are replaced by intarsia work in which all

the woods used are of their natural colours. The sixteenth-century

silver cross on the communion table came from Spain. The wrought-iron

gas standards here and through the chapel are also worthy of note;

fortunately they were allowed to remain when the electric light was

introduced. All this, as well as the scheme of decoration of the

antechapel, is described in guide-books with more or less accuracy.

Probably the services were never rendered more effectively than in the

years following this restoration. Attendance on Sunday evening was

required unless absentees could urge conscientious or other good

reasons for exemption, but a large proportion of those who might have

obtained exemption did, in fact, take part in the Sunday services.

More benches were placed in the chapel than are there now, and the

building, with every seat occupied and everyone (save a few

privileged visitors) in a surplice, presented a most impressive scene.

Electric light was introduced in 1893, and has added much to the

comfort of congregations in winter evenings.

In former days members of the Society who died in College were not

infrequently buried in the chapel--a shocking thing to permit in a

building in constant use, though sanctioned by the custom of many

centuries. There are a good many tombstones scattered over the floor,

and copies of all the inscriptions have been published. I wonder how

many members of the Society know that among those here buried is one

woman, bearing the strange Christian name of Elismar. The last

interment in the chapel took place in October 1886, and further

burials are now forbidden unless sanctioned by the Home Office.

The building has always been used for various secular purposes, such

as elections to scholarships and fellowships; the admission of

scholars, fellows, and officers; the affixing of the College seal to

documents, and the delivery of declamations by students. Within recent

years lectures in the antechapel and an oration in the chapel have

been delivered. I believe the view that a church or chapel is intended

only for the performance of religious services is modern and

unwarranted by history: at any rate our records give no authority for

it.

[Footnote 22: On the site acquired for the College were situated the

buildings of King's Hall, Michael-House, Physwick's Hostel, and some

private hostels or boarding houses. Members of private hostels used

their parish churches. All the students in Physwick's Hostel were

members of Gonville Hall, and used the chapel of that Hall. The

members of Michael-House used St Michael's church: this House had been

founded in 1324 by Hervey de Stanton for a master and six fellows, who

if not priests at the time of admission, had to take orders within one

year; and later two more fellows, three chaplains, and four bible

clerks were added to the foundation, which was intended for secular

clergy studying in the University. The church of St Michael was

appropriated to it, and rebuilt by its founder for use as its chapel.

The fellows had in their House an oratory, and in March 1393, the

bishop of Ely granted them leave to build a chapel, but their history

and convenience alike made them wish to continue to use St Michael's

church as their regular chapel.]

[Footnote 23: Fuller's _History of Cambridge_, reprint 1840, p. 265.

Fuller mistakenly assigned the disturbance to 1566-67 instead of

1565-66.]

[Footnote 24: Since published in the _Proceedings_ of the Cambridge

Antiquarian Society, 22 May 1916, vol. XX, pp. 114-116.]

[Footnote 25: When I first came into residence a survival of this

interpolated symphony existed in a long organ solo which preceded the

anthem.]

CHAPTER VI.

SOME COLLEGE TREASURES.

Those who live among beautiful surroundings and in constant touch with

works of art are often apt to take their privileges for granted.

Members of Trinity are proud of the buildings of the College and the

grounds in which they are placed, and most of us know something of

their history and characteristic features. But with our art treasures

there is less general acquaintance, and so perhaps it may not be out

of place to jot down a few notes on some of them--chiefly pictures and

plate--in which I take pleasure.

Of the contents of the library I say nothing, for a volume would be

needed to describe them even briefly. The illuminated manuscripts and

the early printed books attract most attention, but there are numerous

other subjects in which the library must be ranked among the most

important in Great Britain. I have often been told by undergraduates

that they have never been in the building except once when they signed

the Admission Book. That is true enough of some men, but those who are

interested in rare and famous books and yet never visit the Library

neglect exceptional opportunities.

Of oil portraits--in all nearly two hundred--of former members of

the College, we own a valuable collection, and they illustrate in a

remarkable way how many distinguished men have been educated here.

Identification is easy as labels are placed on most of the pictures.

Unfortunately we have no gallery in which they can be shown. Some are

put in the hall, some in the master's lodge, some in the combination

room, and some in the library, lecture-rooms, etc. Those in the lodge

are set off well, but the others are not hung to advantage.

About twenty-five years ago a proposal was made to raise subscriptions

for an art gallery to be built along the edge of the river starting

from the present north end of the library and extending over the land

now occupied by the master's stables and the end of his garden. At

that time the proposal did not receive much favour, but now I

sometimes wonder if we were wise in putting the plan on one side.

Certainly we have more canvasses than we can exhibit satisfactorily.

The hall, too, would look a more dignified apartment if the pictures,

except for one or two on the dais, were taken away: recently their

temporary removal was necessitated by repairs to the woodwork, and the

improvement in the appearance of the room was noticeable. The general

effect of such a clearance may be judged by a visit to the hall of the

Middle Temple in London. The dimensions of the body of that hall are

the same as ours, but instead of pictures on the side walls, each

small oak panel bears an armorial shield: these harmonise well with

the architectural lines of the building. Where, as is the case with

our neighbours at St John's, the panelling is low and there is above

it a big stretch of stone or painted wall, pictures add to the effect,

but this is not the case where the panelling is high.

Of all our pictures I suppose the one which attracts most attention is

that of Henry VIII which hangs over the dais at the north end of the

hall: it was given us by Robert Beaumont, who held the mastership from

1561 to 1567. The artist was Hans Eworth, a Dutchman who lived in

London circ. 1543-75, and worked with or under the influence of

Antonio Moro: the portrait was taken from or founded on that of the

king in the fresco painted by Holbein in 1537 on a wall of the privy

chamber in Whitehall palace. This fresco, which was destroyed in the

fire of 1698 and till then deservedly treated as one of the art

treasures of London, contained portraits of Henry VII and Henry VIII

with their queens, Elizabeth of York and Jane Seymour. Holbein's

studies for the heads of the two kings have been preserved, and are at

Chatsworth and Munich. Most of the extant portraits of Henry VIII are

copied from or founded on this fresco. Signs of deterioration in the

fresco were noticeable in the reign of Charles II, and by his orders

it was copied by Remée, a French painter then resident in London. The

original fresco was on each side of and above a fireplace or window.

Instead of depicting this, the artist represented this space as

occupied by a pedestal containing an inscription: his delineation of

the faces of the sovereigns is poor, but he has preserved Holbein's

general design. Two copies of the reproduction are extant, one of

which is in the royal collection and the other at Petworth.

Hardly less notable than the presentation of our founder, and far more

valuable, is the charming portrait by Joshua Reynolds of the duke of

Gloucester (1776-1834) as a boy: the duke was a cousin of George III

and afterwards chancellor of the University. Reynolds wrote in his

diary that the boy sat for his portrait in March 1780 when he was four

years old, and that the finished picture was delivered in January

1788--the charge for it being a hundred guineas. Horace Walpole

praised it, but thought it "washy," an opinion not shared by modern

critics who esteem it one of Reynolds's masterpieces. The picture was

left to the College in 1843 by the will of the duke's sister, the

Princess Sophia, with a request that it should be hung in the hall.

The legacy was due to the good offices of a freshman of the time--the

Hon. Douglas Gordon, son of George, fourth earl of Aberdeen. He

described the circumstances attending the gift as follows:

When I went up to Trinity in 1842, I used to see a great deal of the

princess.... [I was then] a freshman full of admiration for my

College of which I used to boast. One day the old princess shewed me

the picture, ... and asked if I thought it would look well in the

Hall. On my saying what a boon it would be, she very graciously said

"You can tell Mr Whewell that I will leave it to the College through

you, and I hope you will see this picture placed in a good

position." At her death I took it down to Trinity where I was still

an undergraduate.

The portrait of queen Mary on the other side of the dais is a Spanish

copy of Antonio Moro's famous picture which hangs in Madrid. The

original is said to have been given to Philip after his engagement to

her; it presents her as a woman of strong character but far from

beautiful. When the marriage took place, it was unkindly said by a

Spanish courtier that whatever were the faults of his master, it must

at least be admitted that he recognized the obligation of a gentleman

to keep his word.

Of other pictures in the hall those of Tennyson (1809-92) painted in

1890 by G.F. Watts, of the earl of Essex (1566-1601) painted in 1590,

of Isaac Newton (1642-1727) painted in 1725 by John Vanderbank, and of

Francis Bacon (1561-1626) copied from Van Somer's portrait in Gray's

Inn are specially noticeable. Newton and Barrow (together with

Pearson who is mentioned below) played a leading part in the

intellectual life in the University towards the close of the

seventeenth century, but I need not talk here about this. Barrow, who

was a mathematician and divine, had a ready wit. When, previous to his

admission to holy orders, he was examined on his faith, the dialogue

is said to have been as follows:--Chaplain: _Quid est fides?_ Barrow:

_Quod non vides._ Chaplain: _Quid est spes?_ Barrow: _Magna res._

Chaplain: _Quid est caritas?_ Barrow: _Magna raritas._ On which his

questioner retired in dudgeon, and reported that there was a candidate

for ordination who would only give him "rhyming answers to moral

questions": but the bishop had the sense to recognize that truths can

be expressed in rhyme as well as in prose, and Barrow was ordained.

A very pleasing picture is that reputed to be of Byron: this looks

like a Raeburn, though it is ascribed to Thomas Lawrence: its history

is doubtful, but the absence of any peculiarity in the ear is _prima

facie_ evidence that it is not of Byron. Another striking portrait is

that of W.H. Thompson (1810-1886) painted in 1881 by Hubert

von Herkomer. When Thompson saw the completed portrait of himself, he

is said to have remarked, "Do I really look as if I held the world so

cheap" and in a print of it in the house of one of my friends, this is

inscribed on the frame. I ought also to call attention to the window

portrait of Richard, duke of York (1411-60), the father of Edward IV

and Richard III, which probably comes to us from King's Hall.

Among other paintings, which at present hang on the hall panelling,

are portraits of the following famous members of our College:--Edward

White Benson (1829-96) archbishop of Canterbury, Isaac Hawkins Browne

(1706-60), Arthur Cayley (1821-95), the earl of Derby (1826-93),

Michael Foster (1836-1907), Francis Galton (1822-1911), the earl of

Halifax (1661-1715), Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-92), Richard

Claverhouse Jebb (1841-1905), Joseph Joachim (1831-1907) the musician,

Thomas Jones (1756-1807), Joseph Barber Lightfoot (1828-89) bishop of

Durham, Frederick Denison Maurice (1805-72), James Clerk Maxwell

(1831-79), viscount Melbourne (1779-1849), Matthew Raine (1760-1811),

Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873), Henry Sidgwick (1838-1900), Charles John

Vaughan (1816-97), Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) bishop of Durham,

John Westlake (1828-1908), and William Whewell (1794-1866).

Of these, Raine, Jones, Halifax and Hawkins Browne lived in the

eighteenth century. The last-named is known to fame through having

caused a change in the family reigning in the two Sicilies. In fact,

coming to Naples in his travels he danced at a court ceremony "with

such inconceivable alacrity and vigour" as to provoke universal

amusement and amazement: in particular the queen's laughter was so

immoderate that a miscarriage ensued. On such events may the histories

of dynasties and empires turn! He is described on this occasion as

pirouetting in a "dress of volcano silk with lava buttons": perhaps it

is in this costume that he is depicted on our walls. Having related

this anecdote I must in fairness add that he was a poet of

considerable ability, a good talker in an age when the standard of

conversation was high, and an excellent judge of wine. Most of the

portraits are, however, of celebrities of the Victorian age. Of these,

Melbourne and Derby were politicians; Benson, Hort, Lightfoot,

Vaughan, and Westcott represent the church; Westlake was a lawyer;

Jebb a scholar; Maurice and Sidgwick represent ethical philosophy;

while Cayley, Foster, Galton, Maxwell, Sedgwick, and Whewell, were men

of science.

Among the canvasses above the panelling are portraits of Richard

Bentley (1662-1742) the scholar, Edward Coke (1549-1634) the lord

chief justice, Cowley (1618-67) the poet, John Dryden (1631-1701) the

poet, the earl of Macclesfield (1666-1732), John Pearson (1613-86)

bishop of Chester, Robert Smith (1689-1768) the mathematician, and

John Wilkins (1614-72) bishop of Chester. Wilkins is now almost

unknown but he wrote some interesting books, notably one on the

ciphers employed in the civil war of the seventeenth century. Another

work of his on the possibility of a journey to the moon, provoked the

duchess of Newcastle to ask him where she could find a place to bait

if she tried the journey: "Madam," said he, "of all the people in the

world I least expected that question from you, who have built so many

castles in the air that you may lie every night in one of your own."

The pictures in the large combination room of Isaac Newton by Thomas

Murray, and of Matthew Prior (1664-1721) by Godfrey Kneller are good:

the former came to us from a descendant (Mrs Ring) of Newton's

favourite niece, and its history is given in a letter from Charles

Simeon to Mansel, master of the College at the time of the gift. The

other canvasses are too big for a private apartment, but the portraits

of the "proud" duke of Somerset (1662-1748) by Nathaniel Dance, the

marquess of Granby (1721-70) by Joshua Reynolds, the duke of

Gloucester by John Opie, the marquess of Camden (1759-1840) by Thomas

Lawrence, the duke of Grafton (1760-1844) also by Lawrence, and the

duke of Sussex (1773-1843) by James Lonsdale, are of some repute: to

these there was added in 1915 a portrait of Arthur J. Balfour by

P.A. Laszlö de Lombros.

Of the peers mentioned above the names of Granby and Somerset are

still well known. Granby fought in the Culloden campaign, was colonel

of the blues (horse guards) at Minden, 1759; commander of the British

contingent in the campaigns of 1760, 1761, and 1762; and in 1766

became commander-in-chief of the army. Delighting in danger, which

even when in supreme command he deliberately sought, brave to a fault,

an excellent cavalry leader, rich and lavishly generous, he was the

idol of the public, and witnesses to his popularity remain in the

numerous public-houses scattered far and wide over England which bear

his name and arms. Somerset was of a very different type, being a

stupid man whose power was chiefly derived from his enormous landed

possessions. To the Somerset properties he added, by his marriage with

the sole heiress of the earls of Northumberland, the great estates of

the Percies. He held the chancellorship of the University for the

extraordinary term of sixty years. His title of the "proud duke"

commemorates only his arrogance, and was derived from the fact that

even to speak to anyone in a menial position was regarded by him as a

condescension. His servants were trained to understand his wishes by

signs, and numerous footmen surrounded him when in the streets so as

to avoid the risk that any people of the lower classes should approach

or address him. Perhaps the best known of the stories of his

pretensions refers to his remark to his second wife who once called

his attention to something by touching him with her fan (or according

to another version kissed him without asking his leave), "Madam," said

he, drawing himself apart, "my first wife never dared to take such a

liberty, and she was a Percy." As another illustration of his

character I may add that he deprived one of his daughters of £20,000

because she had sat down in his presence without asking his leave.

In the lodge there are numerous portraits of former masters of the

College, and obviously this is the proper place for such a collection.

It is not complete, twelve past masters being unrepresented, but

portraits of two of these (namely Wilkins and Pearson) hang in the

hall. The most notable picture in this series is that of Nevile, which

is properly given the place of honour over the mantelpiece in the

dining room which he built. He holds a paper in his right hand, and

I like to think that this is intended to suggest the letter which

Elizabeth on her death-bed entrusted to him to take to Scotland,

informing James VI of that kingdom that she designated him as her

successor. In this room too are portraits of Porson and Thompson with

whose memories so many excellent academic stories are associated, but

I must not linger over these. In the drawing room the most striking

portraits are those of queen Elizabeth by Mark Gerrard, the duke of

Gloucester (1776-1834) in his undergraduate robes by George Romney,

and queen Mary probably by Hans Eworth. The painted panels in the

entrance hall often escape attention, but are worth looking at,

especially in the case of the portraits of Edward III, Henry VII,

Elizabeth of York, Mary of Scotland, Edward VI, and queen Mary. The

collection of portraits, formed by Dr Butler, of Trinity men who have

held judicial appointments is also interesting, but is not generally

accessible to visitors.

The pictures in the lecture-rooms and on the walls of the staircase

leading to them form a sort of overflow collection, and though of

unequal merit, a few are worth attention. There are also some pictures

of merit in the library among which I note in particular portraits of

Tennyson and Lightfoot.

The engravings of former members of the College placed in the small

combination room will repay study. There are at present between one

hundred and fifty and two hundred here, but there are many more in

portfolios in the library. Several of these have been acquired in

recent years through the generosity and knowledge of John Charrington.

The painted glass in the hall shows numerous coats of arms, and anyone

acquainted with heraldry will find here a rich field of study. The

windows could have been filled over and over again with the arms of

former famous members of the College, but the matter has been managed

in a haphazard way, and many distinguished sons of the House are

unrepresented. In spite of some bad glass the collection is

interesting. Perhaps however any further account of it here would be

more technical than would be justified in a paper like this. Of other

glass in the College, the windows in the chapel are typical of the art

of 1870, and are only moderately satisfactory. The window at the south

end of the library, executed in 1775, was made by Peckitt of York,

after a design by Cipriani: it illustrates some curious points in the

history of the art of stained glass, but the design is impossible, and

the scheme of colour atrocious.

Sculpture, unless it is absolutely first rate, does not represent a

man as well as portraiture. The number of pieces of statuary of the

first class in Great Britain is small, and in the possession of such

pieces the College is extraordinarily fortunate. The statue of Newton,

with its proud inscription "Newton qui genus humanum ingenio

superavit," in the antechapel by Roubiliac--"the marble index of a

mind for ever voyaging through strange seas of thought alone"--is of

the highest merit. It was described by Chantrey as "the noblest of

English statues," and I have never seen any modern piece of statuary

anywhere which can be ranked superior to it: the man lives and almost

moves. Thorwaldsen's statue of Byron, rejected by the authorities of

Westminster Abbey on account of his alleged atheistical opinions,

which stands in the library, and that of Bacon in the antechapel may

also be reckoned among examples of first-class statuary. Of these

three pieces two are by foreigners. There are also in the antechapel

statues of Barrow, Macaulay, Whewell, and Tennyson, and in the library

a large number of busts. The statues of Edward III on the clock tower,

of Henry VIII, James I, Anne of Denmark, and Prince Charles on the

great gate, and of queen Elizabeth on the queen's gate are

interesting, though not to be reckoned as works of art.

Old Silver Plate has a peculiar beauty. We have some fine specimens

though they are fewer and later than from our history we should

expect. Most of the pieces are kept in the butteries, and can be seen

by visitors. Twice a year anyone entering the hall will see the junior

bursar there with all the plate spread before him checking it by his

lists, a pretty spectacle which always suggests to me the picture of

the king "in his counting house counting out his money," and formerly

in "May-week" typical pieces were set out on show in the hall.

We have a catalogue of the plate--a large and valuable

collection--owned by King's Hall in the fifteenth century, and we may

reasonably suppose that this, as well as the plate belonging to

Michael-House, came in due course to us; all this has gone with the

possible, but doubtful, exception of a censer boat now in the library.

We know also that some plate was given us in Tudor and early Stuart

times: of this, only five pieces remained to us at the restoration. I

take it however that until well into the eighteenth century people

were accustomed to regard plate, other than pieces of historic

interest, as a convenient way of keeping portable wealth in a form

which could be easily turned into coin, and its dispersion in times of

emergency when money was wanted is not surprising.

It was customary for noblemen and fellow-commoners to present plate to

the House when they completed their academic career: their

caution-money being commonly employed for or towards the purpose.

After the restoration, thanks to this graceful practice, our

possessions of this kind grew rapidly. Unfortunately a good many of

our pieces were lost through two burglaries, one in 1795 and the other

in 1798; for instance, no less than fifty-five drinking cups some of

great beauty were then taken. During the eighteenth century, in

colleges and throughout the country, large numbers of "standing

pieces" of plate were melted down, and the metal used to make spoons

and forks; this accounts for the disappearance of some of our

treasures of an earlier date. Until 1870 new pieces continued to be

added in large numbers: in that year the College abolished the general

admission of noblemen and fellow-commoners, holding that distinctions

of rank were undesirable in academic life; and since then our

collection has increased only by special gifts or by purchase.

Of our pre-commonwealth plate the oldest pieces are two silver-gilt

flagons, dated 1607-08, given us in 1636 by John and Bernard Stuart,

sons of the duke of Lennox, then about sixteen and fourteen years old.

There is in the small combination room a charming print of Vandyke's

portrait of the brothers: both boys were killed during the Civil War,

John at Edgehill and Bernard at Rowton Heath. Whistles are placed in

the handles of these flagons, so they must have been originally

intended for secular use, but they have been included, as far back as

our records go, among the communion plate: perhaps the spouts were

added when the vessels were placed in the chapel. Our next earliest

piece is the handsome cup, dated 1615-16, given us by Nevile probably

in 1615: it was originally silver-gilt. The fourth of these pieces is

a bursarial rose-water basin and ewer dated 1635-36. We owe it to

Ambrose Aykerod who was bursar in that year: his arms are engraved on

the cup, and the inscriptions on it refer to vows and pledges by him

which are now inexplicable. The only other early piece which survived

the Civil War was a cup given by John Clarkson between 1610 and 1620

and known from its inscription "Pauper Johannes Dictus Cognomine

Clarkson Hunc Cyathum Dono Gratuito Dedit" as the "Pauper Joan Pot":

this was stolen in 1798. Clarkson had matriculated as a sizar in 1553,

obtained a scholarship in due course, and graduated B.A. in 1560.

Apart from the four pieces mentioned above, the most striking objects

in our collection are the rose-water basins and ewers, the Duport

standing salt, the standing or loving cups, the tankards, and the

punch-bowls.

We have several notable rose-water basins and ewers. The earliest of

these is the set given by the earl of Kent in 1662 to commemorate the

passing of the Act of Uniformity. The date is given by a quaint double

chronogram: and the central inscription Νιψον ανομηματα μη μοναν οψιν

reads alike forwards and backwards. Another beautiful set is that

given by the duke of Buckingham in 1671, the circumference of the

basin being over seven feet. The visitor should also notice a set of

1740 bequeathed by David Humphrey, and a set of 1748 given by William

John Bankes. Another set consists of a basin of 1716 given by John

Bennet, with a graceful ewer probably made about 1675. This ewer must

have been originally a "standing cup" since a whistle is placed in the

handle, but a spout was added between 1789 and 1810 with the intention

of turning it into a flagon: on it are engraved the Trinity and

Westminster arms, and in an early catalogue it is called the Busby

cup: its donor is unknown.

There is a curious custom at the high table connected with these

dishes. At the end of dinner on ordinary nights, before grace is said,

a rose-water dish with an empty ewer is placed before the fellow

sitting at the head of each table. I conjecture that this dates from a

time when napkins and forks were unknown, and diners were accustomed

to rinse their hands in water before rising from the table. Now the

appearance of the empty ewer is only a sign that dinner is over. At

feasts the ewer contains rose-water which is poured into the dish and

passed round the table.

We have a fine specimen of a standing salt in a piece associated with

the name of James Duport. Its breadth is nearly ten inches, and its

height, without the handles, seven inches. It was these massive salts,

and not "trencher salts," that were originally used to divide the

company into those that sat above and below the salt; and in the

middle ages the standing salt was generally the most valued single

piece in the house and the chief ornament on the table. The medieval

specimens usually have a cover to protect the salt, and the handles in

specimens like ours are said to have been introduced for a similar

reason, as a napkin can be twisted round them so as to cover the salt,

and thus save it from dust. Our specimen bears the inscription εχετε

εν εαυτοις ἁλας και ειρηνευετε εν αλληλοις, together with a statement

that it was given by Duport. Probably his gift was made in 1665, when

he left the College on his appointment as master of Magdalene. The

piece, however, bears the hall-mark 1733-34; here, and in some other

cases, it would seem that the original piece was exchanged for a new

one, perhaps when repairs were required, and it was the custom in such

circumstances to engrave the old inscription on the new piece of

plate.

In spite of our losses at the end of the eighteenth century some fine

drinking cups and covers still remain in our possession. Notable among

these is one of 1691-92 given by Charles and George Firebrace, one of

1697-98 given by Henry Boyle, and one of 1711-12 given by John Verney.

We have also a cup and cover of 1726 given by the earl of Sandwich,

another of 1729 given by Samuel Husbands, another of 1763 given by

John Damer, another of 1771 given by George Augustus Henry Cavendish,

another of 1776 given by William Greaves, and another of 1780 given by

the earl of Mexborough. To these I may add the Lyndhurst silver-gilt

cup and cover of 1876-77 given by Sir Theodore Martin. All these are

fine specimens of silversmith's work, and can be used at feasts as

loving cups, with the ceremonial customary to such drinking.

The tankards with lids form another striking group of plate, but the

larger ones which contain three quarts or more must be regarded as

being decorative rather than useful. Conspicuous among these pieces is

one, probably made about 1670, given by Thomas Taylor, one of 1698-99

given by Peter Pheasaunt, one of 1699-1700 given by Thomas Alston, one

of 1700-01 given by Thomas Bellot, one of 1739-40 given by Thomas

Foley, one of 1746-47 given by Francis Vernon, one of 1751-52 given by

Charles Paulet, one of 1757-58 given by Edward Fitzgerald, and one of

1762-63 given by Hans Sloane. There is also a fine collection of ale

plate. Of the smaller tankards, stoups, and drinking cups there are

innumerable specimens. I will not dwell longer over our other pieces.

Suffice it is to say that of punch-bowls there are three or four fine

specimens of the eighteenth century, as also various snuff-boxes,

silver trays, etc. Of candlesticks there are between two and three

hundred, many of them beautiful pieces of work. Of ordinary domestic

plate the stock is large.

There is also a good deal of plate which has been given or assigned

for use in the lodge: this includes the Perry silver-gilt dessert

service. In the chapel plate besides the flagons already mentioned

there are two silver-gilt patens of 1661-62, associated in the early

catalogues with the names of John and Bernard Stuart; also an

alms-dish of 1673, and an altar cross given in 1894 and said to be of

Spanish renaissance work.

I add some particulars of thirteen challenge pieces of plate owned

by the Boat and Athletic Clubs: of these, five belong to the First

Trinity Boat Club, and eight to the Athletic Club. These pieces are of

recent make and their chief interest comes from the inscribed names of

the successive holders.

Trinity men will recollect that there are various races arranged each

year by the First Trinity Boat Club, the winners of which receive pots

or other prizes, and that in five of these events, the winners, in

addition to receiving the special prizes, hold challenge pieces on

which are engraved the names of past winners. These challenge pieces

are: A two-handled silver chased cup and stand (hall-mark 1836), held

by the winner of a sculling race (the Macnaughten Sculls) rowed in

the Michaelmas Term, open to all members of the Club who have not

previously won it or the University Colquhoun Sculls. A two-handled

silver cup and stand (hall-mark probably 1857 or 1858), which came to

the club from the now defunct Second Trinity Boat Club, held by the

winner of a sculling race (the Baines Sculls) rowed in the Lent Term,

open to all members who have not previously won it or the Macnaughten

Sculls or the University Colquhoun Sculls. Silver oars (hall-mark

1860) held by the winners of a pair-oared race (the Wyatt Pairs) rowed

in the Michaelmas Term, open to all members who have not previously

won it or the University Magdalene Pairs. Silver oars (hall-mark 1861)

which came to the Club from Second Trinity, held by the winners of a

pair-oared race (the Dodington Pairs) rowed in the Lent Term, open to

all members who have not previously won it or the Wyatt Pairs or the

University Magdalene Pairs. Silver Sculls (hall-mark 1897) held by the

winners of a double sculling race (the Taxis Sculls) rowed in the

Easter Term, open to all members who have not previously won it or the

University Magdalene pairs.

Similarly among the sports arranged each year by the Trinity Athletic

Club are seven events, the winners of which in addition to receiving

special prizes, hold challenge pieces of plate on which are engraved

the names of past winners. These challenge pieces are: A half-fluted

silver bowl and plinth (hall-mark 1887) held by the winner of the mile

race. A half-fluted silver bowl and plinth (hall-mark 1899) held by

the winner of the half-mile race. A silver chased claret jug with

handle (hall-mark 1886) held by the winner of the quarter-mile race.

Four silver candlesticks (hall-mark 1899) held by the winner of the

hundred yards race. A two-handled half-fluted silver cup (hall-mark

1888) held by the winner of the hurdles race. A two-handled silver

bowl (hall-mark 1896) held by the winner of the long jump. A silver

salver (hall-mark 1896) held by the winner of the high jump. Finally

there is a two-handled silver chased cup and plinth (hall-mark 1892)

held by the man who scores most marks in the various events.

It may be thought that I have occupied too much space in giving bare

lists of pieces of plate, but the shapes of some of the pieces are so

good and the surface of old silver, when carefully tended, has such a

beautiful texture that I believe it may be worth calling the attention

of any interested in such things to some of our possessions of this

kind. Only societies and families with continuous records dating from

a distant past can show such collections.

CHAPTER VII.

THE COLLEGE AUDITORS.

There is no reference in our earliest college statutes--those of

1552--to an Auditor, but the extant accounts show that the office

existed from the foundation of the College in 1546. Definite

regulations for the appointment were proposed in the draft statutes of

1554, and were embodied in the statutes of 1560. By these the auditor

was made one of the statutable officers of the Society: the post was

held for long periods, and it was not permissible to perform the

duties by proxy. The statute in question was re-enacted in 1844. By

the statutes of 1861 the office was made annual, and tenable only

during pleasure. It remains annual under the present statutes, but a

definite proviso was inserted in 1882 that it is not tenable by a

fellow or officer of the House, and a clause was introduced providing

for the appointment from among the fellows of an Assessor or Assessors

who should be present during the audit.

From the foundation of the College, its financial year ran from

Michaelmas to Michaelmas, and the audit of each year was concluded in

the following December. At first the annual honorarium of the auditor

seems to have been £10 with an allowance of £2 for travelling

expenses, stationery, etc., but before the end of the sixteenth

century it had been reduced to £5, with an augmentation of £3. 6s. 8d.

and some allowances.

The form of the _declaratio computi_ was much as at present, and

generally, with but small variations, it takes the form now

stereotyped "and so the said A. B. Senior (or Junior) Bursar upon the

foot of this his account for one whole year ending Michaelmas ...

oweth unto the College the sum of...." In some cases, and notably in

the seventeenth century, the sums include fractions of a penny, even

as small as one thirty-second part thereof. Presumably the audit was

always followed by a "feast," as still remains the custom.

Of the occupants of the office from 1546 to 1618 the information in

the college books is incomplete. The only auditors previous to 1618

whose names I have noticed, with the years in which they held office,

are Edward Burnell, 1553, 1561, 1563 and 1564; Adam Winthrop, 1606;

and Richard Brooke, 1614. I have not, however, read the account-books

through from cover to cover, and it may be that there are references

which have escaped me. Luckily Winthrop's diary and some memoranda

from 1595 to 1621 are extant, and contain references to a few earlier

dates. From these we can take our continuous record back to the year

ending Michaelmas 1593, when he was auditor. He resigned in 1610, and

was succeeded by Brooke. Brooke was acting in 1615, and had commons in

1616, and I have no doubt acted in 1617. From 1618 onwards we can,

from one source or another, make out the names of those who held the

office. The handwritings of the earlier auditors have marked

characteristics. They suggest that there was one auditor from 1547 to

1552, another from 1553 to 1578, who must have been Edward Burnell,

another from 1579 to 1591, and another from 1592 to 1609, who must

have been Adam Winthrop. But I present these as mere surmises, and I

do not attempt to go back beyond 1593.

Our roll then is as follows. From 1547 to 1592 we cannot definitely

say more than that Edward Burnell was auditor for a period which

included the years 1553 to 1564, for no doubt his tenure was unbroken.

From 1593 the sequence runs thus:

Adam Winthrop, 1593 (or earlier) to 1609; Richard Brooke, 1610 to

1617; Robert Spicer, 1618 to 1628; Francis Hughes, 1629 to 1668;

Samuel Newton, 1669 to 1717, Newton resigned in 1674, and thereon he

and William Ellis were appointed to the office, with remainder to the

survivor of them, but apparently William Ellis never acted; Denys

L'Isle, 1718 to 1726; William Greaves, 1727 to 1778; Robert Graham,

1779 to 1791; Samuel Knight, 1792 to 1811; Nicholas Conyngham Tindal,

1812 to 1825; James Parke, 1826 to 1828; Andrew Amos, 1829 to 1836;

John George Shaw-Lefevre, 1837 to 1851; George Denman, 1852 to 1862;

George Valentine Yool, 1863 to 1869; Augustus Arthur VanSittart, 1870

to 1881; John Willis Clark, 1882 to 1908. Since 1908 the office has

been held by a professional accountant. The dates given indicate the

ends of the audit year: thus the audit of 1669 was for the year

1668-69. It will be noticed that during the three hundred and sixteen

years from 1593 to 1908, there were, if we omit William Ellis, only

seventeen auditors, giving an average tenure of more than eighteen

years. Of these seventeen auditors at least eleven have been lawyers

and four ultimately rose to the Bench. I add a few biographical notes

on these auditors.

Of Edward Burnell, the earliest holder of the office whose name I have

given, I know nothing. His successor Adam Winthrop, 1548-1623, the son

of a prominent London merchant and reformer, had been admitted as a

fellow-commoner at Magdalene in 1567, and had left the University

without a degree. He had been called to the bar, but did not practise,

and was content to fill the rôle of a well-to-do country squire. He

was an intimate friend of Still, master of Trinity from 1577 to 1593,

whose sister he married in 1574, and whose wife was his connection by

marriage. I conjecture that he owed the office to Still's influence.

Winthrop was a fair scholar, an indifferent poet, and somewhat of a

pedant. His tomb is at Groton, Suffolk. More than one of his

descendants were distinguished. In particular his son, John,

1588-1649, who was admitted to Trinity College in 1602, was the

founder of the well-known American family of this name; and his

great-great-grandson, Sir George Downing was the founder of Downing

College.

Winthrop seems to have done the whole of the audit work at the end of

the Michaelmas term of each year. Thus in 1601 he wrote:

The ivth of Decemb. I ridde to Cambride & beganne the Auditt the 7th

beinge Monday. The xiiijth of Decembre I returned from the Auditt &

did see the Sonne in the Eclips about 12 of the Clock at noone.

Perhaps his resignation was made at the suggestion of the College, for

early in 1610 he wrote:

Dr Meriton came to speake with me about the resignation of my office

in Trinity College to Mr Brookes.... I surrendered my Auditorship in

Trinitye College to the Mr fellows & schollers before a pub.

notary.... I dyned at Dr Meriton's in Hadley & received of him xxlb

for my Auditorshippe.... Mr Rich. Brooke the nue Auditor of Trinity

College was at my house in Groton to whom I dd. divers paper books &

Roles touchinge his Office.

Of the next three auditors I can discover very little. Richard Brooke

was appointed in 1610. The following conclusion of 8 June 1615, seems

to refer to him, "concluded that Mr Brookes in regard of his paines

taken divers times for the Colledge that he shoulde ... have given him

Twentye pounds," and during his visits in the following year be

allowed commons. We may assume that he held office till the end of

1617. A Richard Brookes had entered at Queens' as a fellow-commoner in

1587, but whether he was the subsequent auditor there is nothing to

show. In 1618 we have the copy of the appointment of Robert Spicer. He

held office till the end of 1628, since a conclusion of 3 June 1629,

appointed in his place Francis Hughes. Hughes, who held the office

till his death in October 1669, was admitted a scholar in 1616,

graduated M.A. in 1623, was one of the esquire-bedells, and occupied

rooms in College at the time of his death.

The next occupant of the office was Samuel Newton, 1629-1718, a

prominent attorney in the town and mayor in 1671. He was not a member

of the University. His diary from 1662 to 1717 preserved in the

library of Downing College, contains an account of his election to the

post in the chapel by the master and seniors, he being present in the

antechapel. He attended next day in his gown, was sworn to the

faithful discharge of his duties, and signed the roll of college

officers. He proved thoroughly efficient. For his services at the

audit in 1669 he received the fee of £5 with the customary

augmentation of £3. 6s. 8d., a sum of £6. 13s. 4d. for engrossing the

audit rolls, which henceforth were kept excellently, a sum of £1 for

preparing a book of arrears, and a sum of £1. 2s. 8d. for stationery.

He also received from the junior bursar, billets of wood of the value

of 6s. 8d.; from the steward, a "warp of lyng" of the value of 6s.

8d.; from the manciple, a "coller of brawne, also a dish of wild fowle

or 6s. 8d."; and from the brewhouse, "2 barrels of strong beere."

In 1674 Newton surrendered his patent of appointment as auditor, but

he was immediately reappointed jointly with his cousin, William Ellis,

with remainder to the survivor of them. They were at the same time

appointed on the same conditions to the office of college registrar,

then vacant by the death of a Mr T. Griffith. According to Newton's

diary, William Ellis proceeded M.A. in 1670, but his name does not

appear in the list of graduati, unless indeed he is the Wm Ellis who

received the degree _per lit. reg._ in 1671. The college account-books

continued to be signed by Newton, and I have not noticed in them

evidence that Ellis ever took any part in the audit. The Society's

solicitors and attorneys have frequently acted as registrars, and it

may be that Ellis was in partnership with Newton, and was for that

reason made with him joint auditor and registrar.

Samuel Newton died in 1718 in his ninetieth year. For the three years,

1715, 1716, and 1717, the books were audited by John Newton,

presumably his son or grandson, as his deputy. No doubt the

arrangement was made in consequence of the failing health of the old

gentleman whose signature in 1714 was very shaky. The appointment of a

deputy was invalid under the statute, but it must have been made with

the approval of Bentley, and perhaps of the seniority. At any rate

John Newton conducted the audit, and signed the books as deputy

auditor.

Newton was succeeded in 1718 as auditor and registrar by Denys L'Isle.

L'Isle had been a fellow-commoner of Trinity Hall, admitted in 1712,

graduated LL.B. in 1715, who had gone down and in 1716 taken his name

off the books. He was a vigorous and not too scrupulous barrister. He

owed his appointment to Bentley, and he showed "extraordinary activity

and zeal in promoting all" his benefactor's "wishes and interests" and

represented him in some of his disputes. Whatever view may be taken of

Bentley's character, no one can justify his conduct in regard to the

college finances. A notable scandal occurred in the audit of 1722. In

the accounts of that year large sums were charged to the College for

works at the lodge and other sums spent by the master which had not

been sanctioned by the Society. Undoubtedly the charges were illegal,

but Bentley and L'Isle refused to allow the accounts to be examined by

the seniority. In fact in this, as in other matters, L'Isle had no

scruple in screening Bentley from the consequences of acts which were

neither legal nor honourable.

L'Isle died in 1727, and was succeeded as auditor, steward of the

courts, and registrar by William Greaves. Greaves had in 1719 migrated

to Clare, Cambridge, from Brasenose, Oxford; he graduated B.A. in

1720, and in 1722 was elected at Clare to a fellowship which he held

till 1742. He was a barrister and an able man: he too owed his office

to Bentley, and acted as his counsel in many of his tortuous

proceedings. Through Bentley's influence Greaves had in 1726 been made

commissary of the University, an office which he held till 1778. The

letters patent to the office of college auditor were made out for the

term of his life, but a question having been raised as to whether this

was statutable, he surrendered them, and the College granted new

patents for the term of fifty years if he should live so long. I

suppose he was duly admitted to the office, for probably an acute

lawyer would have seen to this, but there is no record of the fact in

our books.

Greaves seems to have performed his duties as auditor in an

honourable manner. After the audit of 1778, he surrendered his office

at the close of fifty years' tenure of it: he then received a present

of plate from the College, with their thanks for his long and faithful

services. Six years later he made a donation to the Society of £100 to

found an annual prize for an essay on the character of King William

the Third. After nearly a century it was said that the essayists had

exhausted the subject, and in 1882 the College got leave to substitute

for it one connected with the history of the British Empire.

Robert Graham, 1744-1836, a lawyer of note, succeeded Greaves. Graham

had graduated as third wrangler in 1766, and in the following year had

been elected to a fellowship. He held the office till after the audit

of 1791. He was made a baron of the exchequer in 1799, and proved a

singularly inefficient judge. He retired from the bench in 1827.

Graham's chief distinction is said to have been his urbanity, and at

the Bar it was currently believed that no one but his sempstress had

power to ruffle his equanimity. He was somewhat pompous, and an

adventure of his at the assizes at Newcastle afforded much amusement

to his contemporaries. There, on one occasion just before charging the

grand jury, he tumbled, unnoticed, into the river from the garden of

the house where he lodged, but luckily was hauled out by some passing

watermen. The rough remedies of the quay-side failed to restore

consciousness, and the bystanders, supposing he was drowned, carted

him to a dead-house, where he was stripped and laid out. The coroner's

jury, summoned with unusual celerity, had viewed the body, and were

considering their verdict when, to their surprise he showed signs of

life and came to himself. His position was not altogether dignified,

but realizing at once that it is always incumbent on a judge to move

in state, he was by his directions fetched from the mortuary in the

sheriff's carriage, with the trumpeters, and usual ceremonial.

Of Graham's successor, Samuel Knight, 1755-1829, I know little. He had

been admitted as a pensioner in 1772, became a fellow-commoner in

1774, and graduated in the poll in 1776. Apparently he had no special

qualifications for the post beyond being a pleasant member of society.

He resigned in 1812, and died in 1829.

After Knight's resignation, the post was offered to Nicholas Conyngham

Tindal, 1776-1846, a lawyer of distinction. He had graduated in 1799

as eighth wrangler, was a Chancellor's medalist, and had been elected

to a fellowship in 1801, which, as he did not take orders, he had

vacated in due course in accordance with the provisions of the

Elizabethan statutes. The plan of offering the post to a

distinguished past fellow now became the custom, and all the auditors

hereafter mentioned were past fellows of the college.

Tindal was one of the counsel for queen Caroline; he is celebrated in

the history of the courts for having secured to a criminal client the

right of wager of battle, which had long fallen into disuse but had

not been abolished by statute. He was member for the University from

1827 to 1829 in which year he was made chief justice of the Common

Pleas; he held that office till his death in 1846. Though not

specially successful as an advocate, he had a profound knowledge of

law and was an excellent judge. His enormous dimensions are

commemorated in a print in my possession with the inscription "Judges

of A Size," representing him standing by Joshua Williams one of his

colleagues on assize, who was very diminutive; probably this is an

ancient joke.

The next auditor was James Parke, 1782-1868, a lawyer of even greater

distinction. He had graduated in 1803 as fifth wrangler, and had been

Craven scholar, Browne's medalist and Chancellor's medalist. In 1804

he had been elected to a fellowship. He was one of the counsel briefed

against queen Caroline. He was made a judge in 1828, and of course

then resigned the office of auditor, which he thus held for only three

years.

Parke had a profound knowledge of the common law, and admired, and was

a rigid adherent of, ancient forms and customs. The fact was well

known, and led to a curious scene, when on one occasion, while giving

a judgment, he fainted. Cold water and smelling salts were applied

without success, whereon a somewhat malicious colleague brought from

an adjacent room an ancient volume of reports, black with the dust of

ages, and banged it under the nostrils of the judge. It may have been

a coincidence, but Parke at once revived, and in a few minutes was

able to proceed with the business in hand.

At one time when Parke was trying a criminal case the prisoner

confessed his crime to his advocate, who thereupon (most improperly)

acquainted the judge with the fact and asked his advice. Parke rebuked

the barrister for informing him of the prisoner's guilt, but added

that counsel was not the less bound to defend his client to the best

of his ability. The case has been often cited, and states the practice

of the bar; it being of course assumed that nothing is said or done

for the defence which an honourable man might not say or do.

Parke's subsequent career served to settle a constitutional question

of great importance. In 1856 he was created Baron Wensleydale with a

life peerage. It was decided that the power of the crown to create

life peerages had been lost by disuse. He was then made a baron with

the usual remainder in tail male.

Parke was followed as auditor by Andrew Amos, 1791-1860, also a lawyer

of distinction. He had graduated as fifth wrangler in 1813, and in

1815 had been elected to a fellowship. He was appointed auditor in

1829. He had a large arbitration practice, acted on the Criminal Law

Commission, and was professor of English Law in London. In 1837 he was

appointed legal member of the Indian Council, and on his departure for

the East had to resign his office in the college. On the first vacancy

after his return to England, he was, in 1848, elected Downing

Professor of Laws in Cambridge, and occupied the chair until his

death.

Amos was succeeded by John George Shaw-Lefevre, 1797-1879.

Shaw-Lefevre had been senior wrangler and first Smith's prize man in

1818, and had been elected to a fellowship in the following year. Like

his predecessors he was a barrister, but most of his time was taken up

with duties connected with public departments. He settled the county

divisions under the Reform Act of 1832, and was a member of numerous

Commissions, notably those connected with compensation for the

abolition of slavery, with the Poor Law Act, with the creation of

South Australia, with ecclesiastical affairs, and with the Indian

Civil Service: till 1875 he was busily engaged in public affairs. He

stood unsuccessfully for parliament in the university contest of 1847.

He resigned the auditorship after the audit of 1851. His tenure of the

post is commemorated by his gift of the chandelier which hangs in the

large combination room.

The next auditor was the Hon. George Denman, 1819-1896, also a lawyer.

Denman had been senior classic in 1842, and had been elected to a

fellowship in the following year. He had always kept up his connection

with the College, where he had numerous friends. He became auditor in

1852. Like his predecessor he stood unsuccessfully for parliament as a

representative of the University: this was in 1856. Subsequently he

was appointed counsel to the University. He entered parliament in

1859, and owing to press of work gave up his college office at the

close of the audit of 1862. After a distinguished legal career he was

raised in 1872 to the bench. He was a good scholar, had a fine

presence, and to the end of his life was popular with all classes of

Cambridge society.

If I may trust my memory Denman told me that among his annual

perquisites as auditor was a case of audit ale, and that on one

occasion he gave it to Livingstone who he knew would appreciate it.

The case travelled with the explorer through Africa, and as long as

the ale lasted glasses of it were circulated, to the great

satisfaction of the natives, whenever solemn treaties were ratified.

The next holder of the office was George Valentine Yool, 1829-1897,

a chancery barrister, who had been third wrangler and second Smith's

prizeman in 1851, and had been elected to a fellowship in 1853. Yool

took but little part in public affairs. He was appointed auditor in

1863, and gave up the office at the end of 1869.

After Yool's resignation the College reverted to its former practice,

and appointed as auditor a resident, Augustus Arthur VanSittart.

VanSittart had been bracketed senior classic in 1847, and had been

elected to a fellowship in the following year. After once standing

unsuccessfully for parliament, he devoted himself to literary work,

and among other things collected and collated the various readings of

the New Testament. His annual speech at the audit feast, wherein he

gave a witty sketch of the more interesting developments of academic

life during the preceding year, was one of the features of the time,

and served somewhat the same purpose as the Tripos verses of earlier

ages. He held the office till his death in the spring of 1882. He was

wealthy, and a most generous benefactor of the Fitzwilliam Museum and

other Cambridge institutions.

On VanSittart's death the post was given to John Willis Clark,

1833-1910. Clark had come up to Trinity in 1852, obtained a first

class in the classical tripos, 1856, and was elected to a fellowship

in 1858. He made his home in Cambridge, and his unceasing activities

in zoological, library, and theatrical matters are chronicled in the

local records. He completed the _Architectural History of the

University_--a permanent and invaluable record of Cambridge

history--which had been commenced by his uncle, and wrote on various

library and antiquarian subjects. He held the registraryship of the

University from 1891 to his death in 1910.

Clark vacated the office of auditor in 1908, and since then the

College has appointed to the post a professional accountant.

CHAPTER VIII.

WREN'S DESIGNS FOR THE COLLEGE LIBRARY.

In 1914 the College obtained an interesting series of photographs of

Wren's original drawings and plans for our library in Nevile's Court.

They will well repay inspection by those who are interested in our

history or in architecture.

The present library is the third building assigned by Trinity for the

purpose. During the first half-century of its existence the Society

used the library[26] of King's Hall, a good first-floor room, some

twenty feet long by ten feet broad, which had been built in 1416-21

near the north-west corner of the cloister court of that House. This

room was connected with the old oratory of King's Hall by a gallery

over the west cloister.

Soon after the foundation of Trinity the provision of a larger library

was contemplated, and in the order (about providing building materials

for the chapel) of queen Elizabeth of 1560, it is said that its

erection had been already begun. In fact however it was then only

under discussion.

[Illustration: Wren's Second Design for the College Library.

Exterior.]

[Illustration: Wren's First Design for the College Library. Exterior.]

[Illustration: Wren's First Design for the College Library. Interior.]

[Illustration: Wren's Design for a Senate House.]

Our predecessors, in their arrangements for the "reconcination" or

rebuilding of the Great Court, naturally attached great

importance to not interfering with King Edward's Tower which had long

been the chief entrance to King's Hall and then stood near the present

sundial. A suggested way of working this Tower into the scheme of the

court is shown on the plan which hangs on the staircase leading to the

library annexe; in this, a block one hundred feet long and thirty-four

feet broad, was to be built over an open colonnade running eastwards

from the Tower and ending in front of and a few yards from the Great

Gate. The first floor of this block might have been used for the new

library; or alternatively it might have been used for chambers, and

the new library built elsewhere, for instance, as was suggested, on

the site of the range of chambers which now stretches from the chapel

to the turret staircase adjoining the lodge.

Neither of these proposals was then adopted, and our second library

was not erected till Nevile, between 1594 and 1600, took the matter in

hand. He provided for it a room seventy-five feet long and thirty feet

broad on the second floor of the range connecting the Clock Tower and

the lodge; it has since been converted into chambers.

Less than a century after Nevile's library was finished, the Society

again found it necessary to provide more book accommodation, and the

result is the impressive and excellently designed building which

stands on the west side of Nevile's Court. According to tradition, its

erection, commenced in February 1676, was due to Barrow, then master

of the College, who in the previous year had pressed the other heads

of Houses to provide a room worthy of the University for its meetings,

and urged that it should be of the best. Such schemes are expensive

and cannot be effected without public spirit. Caution, it is said,

carried the day, whereon Barrow, piqued at this faint-heartedness,

declared that he would go to Trinity, "lay out the foundations of a

building to enlarge his back court, and close it with a stately

library, which should be more magnificent and costly than what he had

proposed.... And he was as good as his word, for that very afternoon

he ... staked out the very foundation upon which the building now

stands."

The story may be substantially true, for the long-cherished idea of

building a university theatre and library was then in the hands of a

syndicate: on the other hand the extant speech of Barrow in which he

put forward his policy was not delivered till the Easter term 1676,

and Wren's designs for such a building are referred to the year 1678

and indicate that the scheme had not been then abandoned. But whether

the anecdote be true or not, we may take it that the erection of our

library was due to Barrow's initiative, and that he personally raised

a considerable sum towards its cost.

Sir Christopher Wren, a warm personal friend of Barrow, was selected

as the architect, and placed his services at the disposal of the

College without remuneration. His original drawings are included in a

collection of his designs preserved at All Souls' College, Oxford,

and by the kindness of that Society we have been allowed to take

photographs of the plans which concern us. These relate to two plans

for our library and one for a university commencement-house. The two

plans for Trinity were made not later than 1675; they may have been

submitted as alternatives, but there is a tradition that the second

design was prepared only after the first had been rejected.

Nevile's Court, as now arranged, contains three staircases on each of

its sides, is closed on the east by the hall and small combination

room block, and on the west by the library. In 1675 only two of the

staircases on each side had been built, and the western ends of these

were connected by a blank wall pierced in the middle by a gate, which

is believed to have been later removed, stone by stone, and finally

placed as the entrance to the College at the bottom of Trinity lane,

where it now stands. Beyond this wall and between it and the river was

the college tennis court. The land between Nevile's Court and the

river was selected as the site of the library.

Wren's first design shows a double cylindrical shell about sixty-five

feet across inside and ninety feet high, surmounted by a dome and

entered through a six-columned Ionic portico facing Nevile's Court. On

the ground floor was a lobby round which were stone seats. Above this

the inside of the inner cylindrical shell was lined with bookshelves,

and for convenience of approach there were three galleries. The room

was lighted by windows in the dome and a superimposed lantern. The

east side of the portico was half-way between the western ends of the

court, and these ends were connected with the body of the library by

low curved walls surmounted by iron rails. This building is described

as "a very beautiful and most commodious model," but it strikes the

ordinary layman as poor in design, and I do not think that all Wren's

genius could have made it other than unsatisfactory. Why it was

rejected we do not know, but few will doubt that the decision was

wise.

Wren's second or alternative design, which was adopted, shows a lofty

oblong room about one hundred and fifty feet long by thirty-eight feet

broad supported on a colonnade. Several of his drawings for this were

engraved for the _Architectural History of Cambridge_ by Willis and

Clark, but the photographic reproductions of the originals--some with

Wren's notes attached--which are now available have an interest of

their own. A careful study will show details which were subsequently

modified. The present library was placed to the west of the court as

then built, and the rows of chambers on each side were extended to

meet it. It is well-known that the shelves, cases, benches, tables,

and book-rests now used were designed by Wren, and his drawings for

them are reproduced in this series of photographs. The removal of all

the bookcases except those fixed against the walls would enable us to

judge the appearance intended by Wren. How fine the effect must have

been, may be gathered from the plate in Le Keux's _Memorials_ or the

engraving in the _University Almanack_ of 1852.

Among Wren's plans is also one for "a Theatre or Commencement-House

with a Library annexed, according to an Intention for the University

of Cambridge, about the year 1678, but not executed." Whether this

represents a sketch of the general plan which it is said that Barrow

had suggested to the heads of Houses in 1675 it is impossible to say.

The erection of a building on these lines might have been costly, but

the result would have been a valuable addition to the architecture of

Cambridge.

I published in the _Trinity Magazine_ in 1914 the elevations of our

library according to Wren's two plans and of his suggested

Commencement or Senate House. I reprint these here (see above,

pp. 145-148), but add nothing more as it is intended shortly to

reproduce in book-form various drawings on the subject made by Wren.

[Footnote 26: There was an earlier library in King's Hall but we do

not know where it was situated.]

CHAPTER IX.

A CHRISTMAS JOURNEY IN 1319.

In the Record Office in London are preserved some money accounts[27]

concerned with a visit of the scholars of King's Hall to York at

Christmas in the year 13 Edward II, that is, in 1319. The following

analysis gives the route followed by one section of the party and the

expenses of the journey: it is a valuable record of the method and

cost of travelling in medieval times.

By way of preamble, I may say that the origin of King's Hall is to be

found in the establishment at Cambridge, in 1317, by Edward II, of a

body of Scholars or King's Children; that they were regarded as part

of the royal household; and that the nominations to the office of

warden and to scholarships were reserved to the king. King's Hall

was dissolved in 1546, and its buildings and property assigned by

Henry VIII to Trinity College.

Early in December 1319, the warden and scholars were ordered to spend

the coming Christmas with the court, then at York, and the sheriff of

Cambridgeshire was directed to provide for their journey. During the

preceding Michaelmas term thirty-three members of the House had been

in residence, and all of them went to York.

The names of the members of the House in 1319 are immaterial to our

story, but I venture to give them, for these students lived here

nearly six centuries ago, and doubtless had hopes, plans, and

ambitions at bottom much the same as we have. They were, in order of

seniority, John de Bagshot the warden, Nicholas de Durnford, Nicholas

de Rome, David de Winchester, William Pour, Richard Pour, Nicholas

Pour, John de Aston, John de Torterold, James de Torterold, Robert

de Immeworth, Thomas de Windsor, Walter de Nottingham, Roger Parker,

John de Kelsey, John de Hull, Edward de Kingston, Hugh de Sutton,

Philip de London, John de Salisbury, Richard de Salisbury, Robert

de Beverley, John Fort, Ralph de Gretford, Henry de Gretford, Nicholas

Parker, Nicholas Pull, Richard de Berwick, Andrew Rosekin, Thomas

Griffon, John Griffon, William Draghswerd, and John de Woodstock. It

will be noticed that some of the students are designated by surnames

which were already coming into use and some by place names: the latter

show from what a wide area the scholars were drawn.

For the purpose of travelling the Society was divided into two

sections, both of which started from Cambridge on Thursday[28],

20 December. One party, comprising the warden, John de Bagshot, and

six of the scholars, went on horseback, and arrived at York on

Christmas eve. Their journey thus occupied five days and they covered

about thirty-five miles a day; of it we have no particulars, save that

the warden paid £1. 3s. 4d. for the hire in Cambridge of seven

hackneys, and was allowed £1. 9s. 2d. for the other expenses, namely

10d. a day for each member of the party. The remaining twenty-six

scholars travelled under the care of one of their number, John

de Aston, and arrived at York on 28 December. They took with them

seven and a half lengths of cloth with the furs thereto belonging, and

four grooms, but whether the grooms went the whole way is not clear.

It is with this nine days' journey that I here deal.

The cloth and furs which had been purchased on behalf of the crown

from merchants at Bury were valuable. The former was red in colour

(_de blodes mixto_) and had cost £21. 2s. 6d.: the latter comprised

twenty-one lamb skins, bought for £2. 19s. 6d. and six budge skins,

bought for £1. The carriage of these goods must have been a serious

hindrance to rapid travelling.

The first two days, Thursday and Friday, 20 and 21 December, were

occupied in the journey from Cambridge to Spalding. This was made in

two hired boats (with the services of six men), for which the charge

was 5s. On 20 December, the travellers paid 2d. for porterage of their

goods to the boats at Cambridge, 1s. 7d. for bread, 2s. for beer, 1s.

for herrings, 1s. 4d. for hard fish and codlings, and 4d. for fuel. On

21 December they paid 1s. 5d. for bread, 2s. 2d. for beer, 1s. 7d. for

herrings and other fish, 3d. for cheese, 2d. for porterage from the

boats at Spalding, 5½d. for fuel and candles, and 8d. for beds at

Spalding.

On Saturday, 22 December, they travelled to Boston. On this day, they

paid 2s. for hiring two carts for carrying the cloth and fourteen of

the scholars, and 3s. for twelve hackneys for the rest of the party.

They also spent 1s. 4d. for bread, 1s. 11d. for beer, 2s. 3d. for

herrings and other fish, 5d. for fuel and candles, and 8d. for beds

at Boston.

The next two days, Sunday and Monday, 23 and 24 December, were

occupied in the journey to Lincoln which was performed in a single

large boat. On 23 December, they paid 5s. for the hire of this boat,

4d. for straw to spread on it, 2d. for porterage to the boat, 1s. 6d.

for bread, 2s. 7d. for beer, 2s. 4d. for meat, 1s. 6¾d. for eight

hens, and 6d. for fuel. On 24 December, they paid 1s. 2d. for bread,

2s. for beer, 2s. 1d. for herrings and other fish, 9d. for eels, 3d.

for porterage from the boat at Lincoln, 6½d. for fuel and candles, and

8d. for beds at Lincoln.

Tuesday, being Christmas Day, was spent quietly at Lincoln. Their

expenses for the day were 1s. 4d. for bread, 2s. 1d. for beer, 2s. 3d.

for meat, 1s. 1¼d. for five hens, 7½d. for candles and fuel, and 8d.

for beds.

On Wednesday, 26 December, the party travelled to Torksey, making the

journey in two boats hired at Lincoln. On this day, they paid 2s. 8d.

for the hire of the boats, 3d. for porterage to the boats, 1s. 8d. for

bread, 2s. 3d. for beer, 2s. 1d. for meat, 7d. for eggs, 4d. for fuel

and candles, and 8d. for beds at Torksey.

The next two days, Thursday and Friday, 27 and 28 December, were

occupied in the journey from Torksey to York, which was made in a

large boat hired at Torksey. On 27 December, they paid 6s. for the

hire of this boat, 2d. for porterage to the boat at Torksey, 1s. 7d.

for bread, 2s. 6d. for beer, 1s. 10d. for meat. On 28 December, they

paid 1s. for bread, 1s. 5d. for beer, 1s. 4d. for herrings and other

fish, and 2d. for porterage of their goods at York.

The total cost of the journey came to £4. 5s. 8½d., and this was

repaid to the warden from the royal exchequer on 31 December. On the

opposite page is a summary of the daily expenditure described above.

|Dec. |Dec. |Dec. |Dec. |Dec. |Dec. |Dec. |Dec. |Dec.

| 20.| 21.| 22.| 23.| 24.| 25.| 26.| 27.| 28.

|s. d.|s. d. |s. d.|s. d. |s. d. |s. d. |s. d.|s. d.|s. d.

Hire of Boats | 5 0| ... | ... | 5 0 | ... | ... | 2 8| 6 0| ...

Straw | ... | ... | ... | 4 | ... | ... | ... | ... | ...

Porterage | 2| 2 | ... | 2 | 3 | ... | 3| 2| 2

Hire of Carts | ... | ... | 2 0| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ...

Hire of Hackneys| ... | ... | 3 0| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ...

Bread | 1 7| 1 5 | 1 4| 1 6 | 1 2 | 1 4 | 1 8| 1 7| 1 0

Beer | 2 0| 2 2 | 1 11| 2 7 | 2 0 | 2 1 | 2 3| 2 6| 1 5

Hard Fish, etc. | 1 4| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ...

Herrings, etc. | 1 0| 1 7 | 2 3| ... | 2 1 | ... | ... | ... | 1 4

Eels | ... | ... | ... | ... | 9 | ... | ... | ... | ...

Meat | ... | ... | ... | 2 4 | ... | 2 3 | 2 1| 1 10| ...

Hens | ... | ... | ... | 1 6¾| ... | 1 1¼| ... | ... | ...

Eggs | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | 7| ... | ...

Cheese | ... | 3 | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ...

Fuel and Candles| 4| 5½| 5| 6 | 6½| 7½| 4| ... | ...

Beds | ... | 8 | 8| ... | 8 | 8 | 8| ... | ...

|-----|------|-----|------|------|------|-----|-----|-----

|11 5| 6 8½|11 7|13 11¾| 7 5½| 8 0¾|10 6|12 1| 3 11

There are no records of the expenses of the Society during the time

the members were at York; but presumably while there, they were

treated as members of the royal household. Their visit, however, was

not devoid of incident since a warrant was issued against one of them,

Robert de Beverley, for having joined with the prior of the preaching

friars of Pontefract in an assault on a certain William Hardy: the

student was left behind at York, and there disappears from our

history. Two other members of the House, Edward de Kingston and David

de Winchester, were also left in the city, of whom probably at least

one was concerned in this disturbance. One new member, Warin Trot, was

admitted at York. These changes reduced the numbers to thirty-one. Of

these thirty-one members, twenty-one, under the guidance of John

de Aston, came back to Cambridge on the festival of St Fabian and

St Sebastian (_i.e._ 20 January), while the warden and the remaining

nine scholars, among whom Trot was included, arrived on 9 February,

and from these dates their stipends in Cambridge during the Lent Term,

1320, were reckoned.

Why the king summoned the members of the House to York at so

considerable cost I cannot say, but I think the detailed statement of

how most of them travelled and their expenses on the journey are

interesting.

[Footnote 27: _Exchequer Accounts_, 552/10.]

[Footnote 28: In my original paper the days of the week were given

incorrectly.]

CHAPTER X.

AN OUTLINE OF THE COLLEGE STORY[29].

I have been asked to take you round Trinity College to-morrow, and by

way of preface to say to-night something about its history. The first

of these tasks, to anyone who lives here, is not difficult, but it is

far from easy to give, in forty minutes, a sketch of a history

covering centuries of academic life and involving references to the

lives of many distinguished scholars and men of affairs. If I confined

myself to an account of the buildings the problem would be simpler,

but though they must form the chief topic of our talk to-morrow, I

would prefer to-day to say something about the growth of the College.

On these lines then I proceed, though necessarily in an incomplete

way, to state the outline of our story.

2. Trinity College was founded in 1546, just about half-way back in

the history of the University. Of those pre-Trinity days I will only

say that the University arose about the end of the twelfth century,

and that it was nearly a hundred years after its establishment before

the first college was founded. Colleges were erected for the benefit

of selected scholars who were maintained at the expense of the

foundation, and throughout the middle ages, most of the students lived

in Private Hostels. In Tudor times undergraduates who paid their own

expenses were admitted to colleges, and finally, every student was

required to be a member of one of these Houses: the peculiar

collegiate character of Oxford and Cambridge dates from this change.

I need hardly add that women were not (and are not) admissible as

members of the University, and that in former days teachers and

students alike were unmarried.

3. Towards the close of his reign, Henry VIII determined to found a

college at Cambridge which should promote his views on religion and

the new learning. He decided to use for the purpose the buildings and

land occupied or owned by two of the chief medieval colleges, King's

Hall and Michael-House. Accordingly, under parliamentary powers, he

compelled those Societies to surrender to him their charters and

possessions, purchased such small parts of our present Great Court as

did not belong to them, and gave all this property to his new college

together with large revenues from religious houses which he had

recently dissolved. The proceedings were high-handed, but we may say

that the result justified him. It is believed that, during these

proceedings, the university careers of a few of the students, at any

rate of King's Hall, were not interrupted, and that thus our academic

life runs without a break from the days of Edward II to the present

time. Most of the buildings of Michael-House have now disappeared, but

our connection with King's Hall is still evident through the remains

of its Cloister Court, our Great Gate which bears an inscription

commemorating the permanent establishment of King's Hall by

Edward III, and our Clock Tower on which is a statue of that monarch.

To this group of buildings we must first direct attention to-morrow.

4. Trinity was far larger than the colleges to whose buildings and

property it succeeded. Of course it has had ups and downs in its

career, but it has generally occupied and still occupies a predominant

position in the University. Thus in 1564, its residents numbered three

hundred and six out of a total of one thousand two hundred and

sixty-seven in the University, while last October [1905], it had five

hundred and sixty-eight undergraduates out of a total of two thousand

eight hundred and thirty-five in the University, and two hundred

resident graduates out of one thousand and five in the University: we

now confine our normal entry to under two hundred a year, and as long

as this is so, our numbers cannot exceed a certain limit which we

have long reached, so, as the University grows, the percentage of

students on our boards decreases. The College has always recognized

that it was its duty to be a centre of learning as well as one of

higher education, and thanks to its traditions and the large number of

resident fellows, it has been able to fulfil this double duty.

5. For the first few years after its foundation, Trinity was occupied

in settling the many problems which arise in a new foundation. As far

as accommodation went, the buildings of King's Hall and Michael-House

were connected, and sufficed for immediate needs. Naturally the

protestant character of the foundation given by Henry was emphasized

by the advisers of Edward VI, the altar in the chapel being removed

and a communion table set up in Huguenot fashion in the middle of the

building. Queen Mary increased the foundation, and took a warm

interest in its affairs; of course the Roman service was then

restored. Under Elizabeth the Anglican services were resumed, and she

completed the erection of the present chapel which had been begun by

her sister: it stands to-day externally much in its original form,

though the interior scheme of decoration is different. We may leave

till to-morrow the description of it and college doings connected

therewith. This first chapter of our history ends in 1560 when the

constitution of the College was definitely established in a form

which remained practically unaltered till 1861.

6. The next decade was critical. Many of those who had adopted the

reformed religion desired further changes on presbyterian lines, and

Cambridge, which had taken so prominent a part in the reformation, was

their chief intellectual stronghold. Their leader was Cartwright, a

fellow of Trinity, and their chief opponent was Whitgift, the master

of the College: thus a contest of national importance was mixed up

with college politics and carried on partly within the college walls.

Whitgift's powers as master were large, and he strained them to the

utmost to remove from the House those who opposed him; times, however,

were revolutionary and public opinion condoned and even approved his

actions. At any rate victory remained with him and his party in the

College, the University, and the State, and the position of the Church

of England between Rome and Geneva is that for which he fought.

7. Whitgift acted as tutor to some of the students, among whom were

Francis Bacon and his brother Anthony: you will see the portrait of

the former (as also that of Whitgift) to-morrow, together with those

of his contemporaries, Edward Coke subsequently the great lawyer, and

Robert Devereux earl of Essex the ill-fated favourite of Elizabeth.

By a happy accident some of Whitgift's tutorial ledgers have been

preserved, and we have in them details of the expenditure of his

pupils, which, combined with information from other sources, enables

us to give a fairly complete account of their daily work, prayers,

meals, and amusements[30]. A usual age for commencing residence was

fifteen or sixteen, and it would seem that students then (though of

course subject in many things to reasonable restraints) were allowed

that liberty of action which in my opinion is, even though sometimes

misused, an essential feature of university education as opposed to

the control of the pupil's doings in every hour of the day which is

common in many schools. In 1577 Whitgift accepted a bishopric: an

eloquent farewell sermon preached in College from 2 Corinthians,

chapter 13, verse 2, revealed sincere affection for the place and

moved his audience, "insomuch that there were scarce any drie eyes to

be found amongst the whole number." He left the House prosperous and

of high repute.

8. In 1593 Nevile was appointed master, and took in hand the needed

reconstruction of the buildings. It had from the first been

recognized that the site offered opportunities for the erection of

buildings worthy of the reputation of the College, and he realized how

much the effect would depend on making the court large, and above all

on keeping the chamber frontage only two storeys high with attics

above. The Great Court as it stands to-day is his creation; the only

obvious defect in it is the ugly block built in the south-west corner

in 1770 to replace Nevile's set of combination rooms which had an

elevation agreeing generally with that of the master's lodge, but

enriched by a large projecting trefoil oriel. The hall, kitchens,

combination rooms, and lodge form another group of buildings to which

we must pay attention to-morrow: the first two of these are in the

form left by Nevile. The blazoned glass in the hall and our collection

of pictures in these rooms, especially the portraits of Henry VIII,

Mary, and Elizabeth, all of whom have played an important part in our

history, will well repay your study. Nevile also built, at his own

cost, part of the court situated on the west side of the hall. This

too we shall see to-morrow on our way to the library: in his day, the

court was closed on the river side by a low wall, in the middle of

which stood the stone gateway now used as the entrance to the College

from Trinity Lane, and beyond this wall were the tennis courts and

paddocks.

9. The prince of Wales, afterwards Charles I, came to the College to

inspect these alterations, and he was followed later by James I. These

visits are commemorated by the statues of James, his wife, and Charles

placed on the west side of the Great Gate. The king was so pleased

with his entertainment that he repeated his visit on three subsequent

occasions. Of Nevile, one of his contemporaries wrote, "He never had

his like for a splendid courteous and bounteous gentleman," and the

College still gratefully honours his memory. He was trusted and

esteemed by Elizabeth, and when dying she selected him to carry to

Scotland the fateful letter in which she nominated James I to succeed

her. If you go into the dining room of the lodge you will see Nevile's

portrait, hung in the place of honour over the mantelpiece,

representing him as holding this letter in one hand.

10. You must not think that under Nevile's rule the energies of the

College were wholly directed to material ends. In a memorandum of 1607

on the use of college emoluments for students, he was able to say that

of the higher church officials of the day, eleven deans, seven

bishops, and the two archbishops, were drawn from Trinity. In academic

distinctions, in legal appointments, and in statesmanship its records

were equally satisfactory: so the College was worthily maintaining its

tradition of service in church and state. Under his immediate

successors the College entered on a period of steady prosperity. In

the next generation, however, the shadows of the civil disturbances of

the seventeenth century began to fall; theological disputes increased,

scholarship in other subjects received but scanty attention, and a

general slackness in intellectual pursuits was visible, though it is

fair to say that among the students of the time were three or four who

later deservedly acquired reputation as poets. Among the latter I

particularize George Herbert, Abraham Cowley, and Andrew Marvell;

Dryden entered a few years later.

11. On the outbreak of civil war the town was occupied by the

parliamentary forces, troops were quartered in the College, and a good

deal of damage done to the fabric. In 1644 a large number of the

fellows were expelled, their places being filled by zealots of but

slight education. It may be put to the credit of a few who were left,

notably Duport and Ray, that in this time of stress they devoted

themselves to maintaining the standard of scholarship. On the

restoration such of the expelled fellows as were still alive and

unmarried resumed office. They decided that there should be no

retaliations, and that all those nominated to fellowships under the

commonwealth should be allowed to remain, provided only they did not

preach in the chapel unless they were members of the Church of

England: that was a noble reply to the wrongs suffered.

12. The College took pride in resuming at once its position in the

world of letters and science, and the following years are famous for

the work of Pearson and Barrow, two great divines of the time, and

above all of Isaac Newton. The influence of the last-named philosopher

on the studies and intellectual life of Cambridge was far reaching.

His discoveries in pure mathematics, mechanics, physics, and dynamical

astronomy were of the utmost importance, and made Cambridge the centre

of mathematical work in England. I will show you to-morrow the rooms

he occupied and in which he wrote his famous _Principia_. The

staircase on which these rooms are situated has had other

distinguished occupants: the rooms on the ground floor on the

right-hand side on entering it were occupied by Thackeray, and

subsequently by the late astronomer-royal; those on the opposite side

by Macaulay; the rooms on the first floor next the gate which once had

been occupied by Isaac Newton, were used later by Lightfoot, the

theologian, and Jebb, the Greek scholar; and those on the opposite

side by Sir James Frazer, who has done so much to investigate the

beliefs of primitive man. This is an interesting group of men, but in

fact there are few rooms in College which have not been inhabited at

some time by those who have made their names famous.

13. Barrow held the mastership from 1673 to 1677. On his initiative

the College erected, on the west side of Nevile's Court, the

magnificent library which is now stored with literary treasures. This

is another building to which we must pay attention to-morrow, and with

it we may associate the adjoining chambers. From the close of the

seventeenth century onwards we can describe life in College,

especially among undergraduates, in considerable detail. The usual age

of entry had risen to seventeen or eighteen. To the dons the College

offered a comfortable home until an opportunity occurred of taking a

college living, and it must be admitted that some were beginning to be

content to consider it as nothing more. Materials for the history of

the time and the following century have been published by Christopher

Wordsworth.

14. Towards the close of the seventeenth century, the number of

entries fell; this was attributed, and no doubt correctly, to the rise

to office in College of those fellows appointed by mandatory letters

from James II--he having filled every fellowship that became vacant

during his reign. The history of the Society during the early years of

the eighteenth century may be dismissed with the briefest notice, for

college energies were largely occupied by domestic disputes, and the

number of residents still further decreased: these misfortunes were

mainly due to the scandals inseparably associated with the name of

Bentley. Bentley held the mastership from 1700 to 1742: his critical

work can hardly be over-praised, but his career here was marked by

malversations and many dishonourable transactions. The only scholars

of the time I need mention are Cotes and Robert Smith who were

mathematicians of repute. The latter of these scholars, when master,

did something to restore orderly government and discipline.

15. It was not until near the close of the century that the College

recovered from the taint of Bentley's misrule, and scholarship again

flourished within our walls: among the residents of the time was

Porson, whose wit and conversation must have been delightful features

of the High Table of his day--he lived in K 5, Great Court.

Mathematics now afforded the chief avenue to distinction, but some

acquaintance with classics and moral philosophy was also obligatory.

This period is famous for the number of eminent judges educated in the

College: the strict training in formal logic and geometry required for

success in the mathematical tripos being especially favourable to

legal work. Out of eleven such Trinity judges of the time the names

of Tindal, Pollock, Maule, Lyndhurst, Wensleydale, and Cranworth are

still remembered. Socially, manners were generally coarser than at any

time during the previous century or than later; though the revival of

religion under the influence of Simeon did something to ameliorate

matters.

16. Unlike its predecessor the nineteenth century was one of unbroken

progress in college achievements and reputation. Near its commencement

two internal changes of some importance were introduced in the

imposition of an entrance examination test and of a limit to the

number of those admitted. None the less our numbers increased, and in

1823-25, another court (the New Court) was built on the south side of

that erected by Nevile. At this time, conspicuous among the resident

fellows were Sedgwick the geologist, Peacock the mathematician,

Scholefield, Hare, and Thirlwall, Macaulay the historian, and Airy the

astronomer: it would be difficult to exaggerate their influence on the

intellectual life of the College and University. The undergraduate

society a few years later also numbered a group of men of exceptional

power, notably Trench afterwards archbishop of Dublin, Thackeray,

Fitzgerald, Monckton Milnes (Lord Houghton), Spedding, Arthur Hallam,

Kinglake the historian, the three Tennysons (Alfred, Charles, and

Frederick), and Thompson; while a little later came Alford,

Lushington, Grote, Tom Taylor, Burnand, and Francis Galton. Materials

left by these men, and books like J.M.F. Wright's _Alma Mater_,

C.A. Bristed's _Five years in an English University_, Leslie Stephen's

_Sketches from Cambridge by a Don_, and W. Everett's _On the Cam_,

give us full information of college life during the middle of the

century. In connection with the social life of the early half of the

nineteenth century I should note that athletic clubs now began to be

formed--the First Trinity Boat Club, constituted in 1825, being the

earliest. These societies led to the formulation of definite rules for

various forms of sport, and to much more attention being paid to

out-door games. The subsequent growth of organized recreations of this

kind, increasingly developed in recent years, will strike the future

historian as one of the outstanding features of the last century.

17. In 1840 Whewell was appointed master. He was of commanding

abilities and exercised extraordinary influence: to him more than to

any other single individual is due that development of scientific

studies at Cambridge which has been so marked in the recent history of

the University. Under him, the prince of Wales, afterwards Edward VII,

was entered at the College, and later showed his appreciation of its

influence by sending his eldest son, the duke of Clarence, here.

Whewell erected at his own cost the two courts on the east side of

Trinity Street, the rents being used to encourage the study of

International Law in the University. During his mastership the old

order began to crumble, and new ideals of education, study, and

research arose. The Elizabethan statutes were replaced by transitional

statutes in 1844 and 1861, and these in turn were replaced by others

in 1882, under which the College is now governed.

18. Whewell died in 1866, and was succeeded as master by Thompson, and

he in 1886 by Butler. With their masterships we come to the affairs of

to-day. The 1882 statutes opened a new chapter in our history;

restrictions on the marriage of fellows were removed, and successful

teachers thus encouraged to remain in residence; incidentally, this

created a new social atmosphere. In this and other ways the conditions

of academic life were considerably changed. We need not, however, shun

a comparison with older times: if you want to see how freely Trinity

during the late Victorian period spent itself in the public service

look down any list of judges, bishops, statesmen, colonial governors,

and civil servants of the time, and in all you will find many Trinity

men conspicuous. Confining ourselves strictly to academic work in

Cambridge and to those who have now [1906] passed away, I may mention

the names of Clerk Maxwell in physics, of Cayley in mathematics, of

Munro and Jebb in classics, of Thompson in Greek philosophy, of

Sidgwick in ethics, and of Westcott, Lightfoot, and Hort in theology:

all of these were fellows of the College, and professors in the

University.

19. This is a bare summary of a complex story. Of the spirit that

actuates the College, of all that makes it a living Society, I have

said little. In truth, these are incapable of analysis. The charm that

the place perennially exercises on those who, generation after

generation, make it their home, the affection it inspires, are

intangible: they exist, there are but few members of the House who

have not felt them, and perhaps that is all I need say on this aspect

of our history.

[Footnote 29: A paper read to a party of north-country students

visiting the College in 1906.]

[Footnote 30: On some of the items in Whitgift's tutorial ledgers, see

above, chapter ii, pp. 36-39: the bills are printed at length in

volumes 32 and 33 of the _British Magazine_, 1847, 1848. Other

information on the daily life of students of the time is given in the

statutes of 1560. An interesting list of the outfit and furniture in

the rooms of a fellow-commoner in 1577 was printed by C.H. Cooper,

_Annals of Cambridge_, vol. II, pp. 352-356.]

PART II.

=Concerning the University.=

CHAPTER XI.

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE MEDIEVAL UNIVERSITY.

The problems connected with the beginnings of the University of

Cambridge and the conditions of life in its early days have always

interested me. Much is uncertain and open to various readings[31], but

the following is a summary of the story, as it appears to me.

First, as to the site of the University. About the end of the eleventh

century, Cambridge was little more than a village concentrated round

St Peter's church, having separate hamlets in its vicinity, one near

St Benet's church and the other at Newnham: at that time there was

nothing to suggest the likelihood of its being chosen by students as

a place where they might live and work in security. During the next

century, however, it became of considerable importance. This was due

to several causes. The chief of these were the castle erected in it

by William the Conqueror to overawe the fen-men; its geographical

location which gave it command of the river passage by which most of

the traffic between the midlands and the counties of Norfolk and

Suffolk went; its position as a port of entry for small sea-going

vessels coming from Lynn, of which a relic still survives in a bonded

warehouse on the banks of the Cam; its vicinity to Sturbridge common

on which came to be held one of the chief annual fairs in the kingdom;

and lastly the establishment here of the large monastic Houses of the

Augustin Canons, of the Brethren of St John's Hospital, and of the

Nuns of St Rhadegund: it would seem also that it became[32], maybe

under the authority of the secular canons of St Giles, the seat of a

grammar-school or schools. By 1200 the town had spread from castle-end

to where Christ's, Peterhouse, and Queens' now stand, and along the

east side of the river there were numerous small wharves, locally

known as hythes. The writs of Henry I and Henry II and the charter of

John bear witness to its importance in their reigns, but later this

tended to diminish relatively to other towns.

The Universities of Cambridge and Oxford were initiated near the end

of the twelfth century, both arising in towns free from disorder and

where accommodation for students was obtainable. It was a time when

men of scholarly tastes, especially those resident in religious

houses, were conscious of their ignorance of recent developments in

theology as set out by Peter Lombard and in canon law, and were keen

to study these subjects and scholastic logic. Schools to meet these

needs arose in Cambridge and Oxford and became permanent. Like centres

of instruction were established in other places, but for one reason or

another did not survive long as degree-granting corporations.

It is not known whether the University of Cambridge began with a few

teachers taking up their residence in the town, giving instruction,

and attracting students and other teachers, or whether it started

ready-made by a migration of a body of discontented teachers and

students from some existing school. I believe the former view to be

correct. If so, we may reasonably assume that a considerable

proportion of the earliest adult students were previously living in

monastic houses here or in the neighbouring fenland monasteries at

Ely, Peterborough, or Croyland. It has been suggested that at first

the lectures were given in the local grammar-schools: this is

probable, and would fit in with the secular organization of the

University and the fact that boys learning Latin grammar (glomerels)

were reckoned among its students. Probably the movement was started

with the sanction and direct encouragement of the bishop of Ely,

certainly it was not directly monastic, and more likely the teachers

were secular clerks and not monks. I conjecture that at first the

lecturers were strangers to the locality, but this in no way implies

that a fragment of another university, students as well as teachers,

migrated here as an organized body.

Whatever the origin of the University, its members organized

themselves for mutual aid and protection as a _Studium_ on the model

of that at Paris, with which it seems later to have been frequently

in touch. If we may trust ancient traditions quoted by Bulaeus and

Peacock, the early University had also some connection with the

studium of Orleans: this is possible but speculative. Bologna

represented another type of organization which, however, was not

adopted anywhere in England. The University of Cambridge existed in

working order in 1209, and in my opinion its origin may be safely

assigned to some time in the previous twenty years.

Of its external history during the century following its organization

we know little: we read of its chancellor in 1225, of French students

coming to it in 1229, of special privileges conferred by the crown in

1231 and 1251, of its recognition by the pope in 1233, and finally of

a papal grant in 1318--exceptional in extent--of all rights which were

or could be enjoyed by any university in Christendom. Oxford went

through somewhat similar stages. The two universities were closely

connected, and by 1333 their position had become so firmly established

that they agreed not to recognize any other studium in the kingdom,

and in fact after that year no other university was established in

England until less than a century ago.