Principal of that Hall have always been vigorously asserted against the
Chancellor of the University, who nominates the Principals of all other
public Halls. In 1636, when the Heads of Colleges and Halls were called
upon to give their formal submission to Laud’s new statutes, Chr.
Potter, Coll. Reginæ Præpositus, adds his name “Salvo jure Collegii
prædicti ad Aulam St. Edmundi.” The record of the proceedings on the
occasion of each election of a Principal has been preserved with a care
not usually extended to any but the most solemn of the proceedings of
the College. On the 18th December, 1614, Mr. French is paid 3_s._ for
writing out the agreement made between the University and the College
about the election of a Principal of St. Edmund Hall. The agreement,
securing the appointment to the College, was made in 1559. Lord
Buckhurst (Chancellor from 1591 to 1608) was advised by Lord Chief
Justice Walmsley that it was void, but the law officers of the Crown at
the time maintained its validity.[143]
The common seal, the jewels, treasure, bulls, charters, writings,
statutes, privileges and muniments of the College were to be kept in
a chest with three locks, the keys whereof were to be kept by the
Provost, the Treasurer, and the “Camerarius.” The two last were the
technical names for the senior and junior Bursars respectively, and
were retained in the Long Rolls to a very recent time.
The Foundation was to be in theory open. Like the University, the
College was not to close the bosom of its protection to any race or
deserving nation; and the Fellows at the time of election swore not
only to put away all hatred, fear, and partiality, and to listen to
no requests, but also to act without accepting person or country. The
conditions of eligibility were distinguished character, poverty and
fitness for studying theology with profit. A preference, however,
was to be given to suitable persons who were natives of Cumberland
and Westmorland, to which this preference was given on account of
their waste state, their uninhabited condition, and the scarcity of
letters in them. Within these limits too there was to be a preference
for founders’ kin. After these a _cæteris paribus_ preference was
given to those places wherein the College derived benefit either from
ecclesiastical benefices, manors, lands or tenements. These limitations
soon practically resulted in confining the Foundation to natives of
the two counties. They supplied a steady flow of capable persons; and
curiously enough, though so unequal in size and population, in about
equal numbers.
Pressure was from time to time applied to the College to admit into the
society persons not duly qualified. In the reign of James I., Robert
Murray, a Scot, was thus recommended by a Royal letter; and, though the
College declined to elect him, it was thought politic to pay him £20
“ne in iniquam pecuniarum erogationem traheretur collegium.” During the
time of the usurpation, as a note in the Entrance Book calls it, four
Fellows were intruded, who were promptly got rid of at the Restoration
of Charles II. Thomas Cartwright, who was afterwards “Tabiter,” and
eventually Bishop of Chester, and one of the Commissioners for ejecting
the President and Fellows of Magdalen College, is said to have been put
into the College by the Parliamentary Visitors during the same period.
The claim to preference as founder’s kin does not seem to have been
often advanced. The Thomas Eglesfield, to the purchase of whose tabard
reference is made above,[144] seems to have been grandson of the
founder’s brother John. At the time of his admission to the College,
his father, also called John, seems to have visited the College and
taken away with him a son William, who, like Thomas, had been for a
term under the instruction of Mr. John Leylonde. This is probably the
William who, with his wife, brother, and sister-in-law, receives from
the College gloves in 1459 to the value of 12½_d._ Leylonde seems to
have continued to act as private tutor to Thomas after he joined the
College, as x_s._ is paid in 1418, “Magistro Joh. Leylonde pro scolagio
Tho. Egylsfelde.” A Christopher Eglesfield was on the Foundation about
the same time. Thomas went through all the stages of promotion. He was
“puer,” “serviens,” Fellow, and eventually Provost, besides holding
the University offices of Proctor and Commissary (or Vice-Chancellor).
An Anthony Eglesfield was Fellow of the College in 1577. A James
Eglesfield belonged to it in 1615, and a George Eglesfield in 1670.
A Gawin Eglesfield, who had been taberdar, and was passed over at an
election to Fellows in 1632, claimed election as founder’s kin, and was
backed by the Archbishop of York as visitor. The College successfully
resisted the claim; but on Gawin’s acknowledgment that the claim was
unfounded, to please the visitor, presented him to the living of Weston
in Oxfordshire.
The College, however, in another way, has from the beginning “opened
the bosom of its protection” to students whom it was unwilling out of
regard to the preferences of the founder to admit to the pecuniary
benefits of the Foundation. Whether it was that the buildings
contained more rooms than the slowly growing Foundation was able to
fill with its own members, or for some other cause, the receipts of
the College have always included “pensiones” for “cameræ” occupied by
non-foundationers. The very first Long Roll which has been preserved,
that of 1347-8, contains the names of Roger Swynbrok, John Herte, and
John Schipton as thus occupying chambers. The word used for the payment
has survived in “pensioners,” the name given at Cambridge to those whom
we call “commoners.” The pensioners of the fourteenth century probably
differed in many respects from the commoners of the nineteenth. The
founder was in one sense the first commoner of the College. The Black
Prince was perhaps one of the earliest. Dominus Nicholas monachus,
the monachus Eboracensis who paid two marks “pro magna camera,” the
monachus de Evesham, Robertus canonicus, The Prior of Derbich, Magister
John Wicliff, Canonicus Randulphus, the Scriptor Slake, Bewforth, if
not Bewforth’s more celebrated pupil, afterwards Henry V., Raymund,
Rector of Hisley, the treasurer of Chichester, and numerous other
Magistri whose names appear in this relation were probably rather
researchers or advanced students than anything more resembling the
modern undergraduate. It was not unusual for those who had been Fellows
to return to the College after some period of absence from Oxford and
from the Foundation. But it is doubtless in this element that we find
the first traces in the College of those who now occupy so prominent a
place in any view of modern Oxford. By the time the first lists occur
of residents in the Colleges, and before the regularly-kept register of
entrances begins, the present system seems to have been in full swing.
In course of time it became profitable for the College even to extend
its buildings for the accommodation of this kind of student, and the
“musaea” or “studies” in the “_novum cubiculum_” and in the “_novum
aedificium_” became a regular source of revenue.
It was not only through these and other payments that these “commoners”
contributed to the well-being of the College. Among its most liberal
benefactors some of the foremost have been non-foundationers. So John
Michel, in some sense the second founder of the College, like his
father and his uncle, who, as he records, “in saeculo rebellionis
nunquam satis deflendae sedem quietam per 14 annos hic invenerunt,” a
commoner of the College, besides other benefactions, left an endowment
for eight Fellows, four scholars, and four exhibitioners, merged by
the Commissioners of 1858 with the smaller Foundation of Sir Orlando
Bridgman, another commoner, in the original Foundation of Eglesfield.
During the hundred years which this Foundation lasted (the first
Fellow was elected in 1764, the last in 1861) more than a hundred
Fellows elected to enjoy Michel’s liberality contributed an independent
element which somewhat modified the monotony of the old north-country
corporation. The Michel Fellows were not members of the governing body,
and some amusing stories are told of the differences insisted on by
some of the less genial of the older order. Yet the “Michels” (_mali
catuli_, as the jesting etymology had it) contributed their full share
to the glories of the College. A Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer,
a Chief Justice of Ceylon, a Bishop of St. David’s, three Bampton
Lecturers, a Bishop of Newfoundland, a Bishop of Ballarat, a Professor
of Arabic,[145] were only the most prominent among a large number of
distinguished men who owed something to Michel’s liberality. The value
of the Fellowships was small, and the length of tenure limited, and
so richer Foundations carried off some of those who had for a while
been on this Foundation. So among others Dornford passed in this way
through Queen’s from Wadham to Oriel, so Basil Jones from Trinity to
University, so Tyler and Garbett back again to Oriel and Brasenose from
which they came. The College has not been willing to let Michel’s name
be altogether forgot, and the four junior Fellows in the list are still
called Michel Fellows.
In quite recent times the College has had to thank a commoner for its
latest considerable benefaction, and five scholars will always have
occasion to bless the memory of Sir Edward Repps Jodrell.
Some of the most characteristic of Eglesfield’s injunctions were
concerned with the Common Table. In the midst of the table was to sit
the Provost or his _locum tenens_. No one was to sit on the opposite
side in any seat or chair, nor to eat on that side either kneeling or
standing. If necessary, room was to be found at a side table.
They were to meet twice in the day for meals at regular hours. They
were to be summoned by a “clarion” blown so as to be heard by all
the members of the foundation. Among the charges in the accounts for
1452-3 is 2_s._ 4_d._ for the repair of the trumpet. In 1595-7, either
for repair or a new one, there was paid 8_s._ “pro tuba”; and in
1604-5 “pro tuba et vectura a Lond. et emendatione,” 28_s._ In 1666 a
magnificent silver trumpet was presented by Sir Joseph Williamson, one
of the most liberal of the benefactors as he was one of the most loyal
of the sons of the College, to which he was never weary of expressing
his obligations and his affection. By a curious accident his extensive
private correspondence has become incorporated with the Domestic State
Papers of the period, and those who are searching for the more secret
springs of the public policy of his age have their attention arrested
by the details of his familiar relations with his College friends. So
too at an earlier time among the State Papers of the reign of James I.
are included the Latin verses and orations, the sermon-notes and other
occasional papers of a Queen’s undergraduate, who was afterwards to be
Mr. Secretary Nicholas. And along with these are letters to him from a
sister, promising stockings, and asking sympathy for toothache and the
mumps; and this three hundred years ago.
As they sat at table, before them was to be read the Bible by a
Chaplain. They were to pay attention to him, and not prevent his
being heard by loquacity or shouting. They were to speak at table
“modeste,” and in French or Latin unless in obedience to the law of
politeness to converse with a visitor in his own language, or for some
other reasonable cause. Unseemly talk or jesting was to be avoided,
and punished if necessary by the Provost. Up to the beginning of the
present century it was the practice for the porter to bring at the
beginning of dinner a Greek Testament to the Fellow presiding at the
High Table who returned it to him indicating a verse, and saying,
“Legat (so and so),” naming the scholar of the week. The porter then
took the book to the scholar and gave it him, saying, “Legat,” and the
book after the verse had been read was carried away by the porter.
When this custom was abolished does not appear, but Provost Jackson
remembered that it prevailed when he came into residence (1808).
At both meals, at all times of the year, that their garments might
conform to the colour of the blood of the Lord, all the Fellows were to
wear purple robes, and if Doctors of Theology or of Decrees, the robes
were to be furred with black budge. The Chaplains were to wear white
robes, and the Provost was to see that those of each grade wore robes
of uniform colour.
The Students in Arts[146] among the poor boys were to dispute a
sophism among themselves once or twice a week, under the guidance
of an “artist,”[147] who was to look after them, superintend their
disputations, and otherwise supervise their instruction. The
“grammarians”[148] were to have “collationes” before their instructor
every day except Sundays and “double feasts.” The Clerks of the Chapel
were to instruct the poor boys in singing. All the instructors,
artists, grammarians and musicians were to be diligent in watching the
progress of the students and in instructing them, and were to swear to
be so.
The Students in Theology[149] were to hold theological disputations
every week on Saturday, Friday, or some other convenient day, which
were to be superintended by the Provost or his _locum tenens_, or the
senior present at the disputation; and at these all the theologians
except the Provost, who would be very much busied about the affairs of
“the Hall,” _i. e._ of the College, were bound to be present unless
prevented by some lawful cause.
The number of scholars was to be increased as the means of the College
allowed. A Provost or anybody else who opposed such increase was to be
expelled.
For the maintenance of each scholar a sum of ten marks annually was
to be set aside. Of this, at least 1_s._ 6_d._, and not more than
2_s._, was to be appropriated to his weekly commons. Anything saved
under this head out of 2_s._ in the week was to be devoted to alms
and no other purpose. The remainder of the ten marks was to go to
the scholars to provide them with clothes and other necessaries. The
Provost was to look to the character of the clothes. If they went far
in country or town, they were not to wear simple or double “hoods,” but
long “collobia” (frocks, sleeveless or with short sleeves), or other
suitable garments; and they were not to go alone.
An absent Fellow was to forfeit his commons in the long vacation, and
the rest of his allowance also at other times, unless he were absent
on the business of the Hall. Additional reasons for the enjoyment of
commons in absence were subsequently approved. Pestilence in Oxford was
a common excuse. In 1400-1, 1_s._ 6_d._ is allowed for the commons of
William Warton and Peter de la Mare in time of pestilence. Similarly
in 1625-6, £7 4_s._ is allowed to the Fellows dispersed in time of
pestilence. Equally urgent reasons commended themselves during the
reign of Charles I. In 1642 payments are made to Fellows, Chaplains,
boys and servants in place of commons, when the College was for seven
weeks dissolved owing to the advance of the enemy; and this in the same
“computus,” with seven payments for bonfires on the occasion of seven
Royalist victories. A Fellow received for each week 5_s._, a Chaplain
and a boy 2_s._ 6_d._, a servant 2_s._ Three Fellows away in the North
got smaller payments during eleven months.
In order that there might be plenty to give away, the Scholars and
Chaplains were to have two courses at meals on ordinary days, and on
the five great feasts--Christmas, Easter, Whitsuntide, the Assumption,
and All Saints Day--an extra course with a suitable quantity of wine.
Court manners were to be observed at meals and other times.
How soon the custom of bringing in a boar’s head at Christmas began
does not appear, nor is the date of the carol sung on the occasion
ascertained. Wynkin de Worde’s version, which differs in some
particulars from that used in the College, was printed as early as
1521. On the 24th December, 1660, £1 10_s._ is paid “pictori Hawkins
caput apri in festo nativitatis adornanti.” This suggests that the
head was then, as now, “adorned” with banners bearing coats of arms:
Richard Hawkins was a heraldic painter resident in Oxford, an intimate
of Anthony Wood.
The expenses of any Fellows sent out of Oxford on College business
were to be defrayed by the Community. They were to bring an account of
their expenses at the end of the journey, which was to be audited by
the Provost, Treasurer, and Camerarius, who were to disallow them if
in their judgment excessive; and if the three auditors could not agree
on this point, the judgment of the Provost was to decide. Thus, in
1386-7, Mr. Richard Brown the Camerarius and Senior Fellow is repaid
12_s._ 4_d._, his expenses for a journey to Devonshire to get the books
bequeathed to the College by Mr. Henry Whitfield, as well as 20_d._ for
the carriage of the said books. Ten years later two and a half marks
are paid for Mr. Thomas Burton’s expenses in going to the Archbishop of
York. In 1411-12 the same Fellow pays a visit on College business to
the Roman court.
If the revenues of the College allowed, thrice in the year, at the
end of each term, a portion beyond the commons was to be divided
among the Fellows fairly, according to the amount of their residence.
On the day of this division the statutes of the College were to be
read among themselves by the Provost and scholars, and a solemn mass
of the Holy Trinity to be said in the College Chapel, or Parochial
Church, “if they got one,” for the King, Queen Philippa, the other
benefactors of the Hall, and other persons specified in the statutes,
and for all the faithful living and dead. After the solemn mass the
Provost was to inquire separately of each of the Fellows as to the
behaviour of the rest in the matters of obedience to the statutes,
honesty of deportment, and progress in study. Special regulations were
laid down for the conduct of this inquiry. These regularly recurring
inquiries might be supplemented by special inquiries whenever the
Provost thought it necessary; and at the peril of his soul he was to
see that the boys, the chaplains, and the other “_ministri_” conducted
themselves properly. All accused persons were to be allowed to purge
themselves privately, peacefully, and honestly, but not scandalously
or contentiously. No scholar or poor boy was to be expelled except
with consent of a majority of the College. The Provost inflicted other
punishments after taking counsel with one or two of the scholars.
The Provost was allowed to keep a servant or clerk, to whose
maintenance he was to contribute. The other Masters or scholars
were prohibited from burdening the community by the introduction of
strangers or relatives, and especially of poor clerks of their own or
private servants. This was not to prevent hospitality being shown at
the expense of the entertainer, in the hall or in his own chamber, to
friends, of any rank, from the city or outside, who might come to see
one of the community. A visitor on business of the community was to be
properly entertained in the hall or Provost’s lodging at the common
expense.
Nor did this in later times prevent such services as were rendered by
a “fag” at a public school some fifty years ago from being rendered in
College for a salary by the poorer students to the richer. So George
Fothergill, in 1723, writes home--“My Tutor has given me a gentleman
commoner last night, w^{ch} I call’d up this morning. So that for
calling up I have about 5 pounds per year, viz. 5_s._ a quarter of each
of the 3 com̄oners w^{ch} I had before, w^{ch} comes to 3 pounds a
year, & 10_s._ a quarter for this Gent: Com: w^{ch} makes up 5 pounds.”
Harriers, hounds, hawks, and other such animals were not to be kept in
the Hall or its precincts by any of the scholars. It was not thought
fitting that poor men living mainly on alms should give the bread of
the sons of men for the dogs to eat, and woe to those who play among
the birds of the air. The “_extructio pullophylacii_” in 1590 would
probably not be regarded as a violation of the statute, nor “_le
henhouse_,” probably the same building which is referred to a few years
later. A caged eagle also seems from time to time to have been kept
in the College, in connection with the founder’s name and the arms of
the College. In 1661, 5_s._ 3_d._ is paid, “_operculum fabricanti ad
concludendam aquilam domini praepositi_.”
The use of musical instruments was prohibited within the College except
during the hours of general refreshment, as likely to produce levity
and insolence, and to afford occasion of distraction from study.
This of course did not apply to the musical instruments employed in
the chapel service. There was an organ in chapel from very early
times. In 1436-7 4_d._ is paid among the expenses of the chapel “pro
emendatione organorum”; and in 1490-1 “organa reparantur.” In 1676-7
£1 12_s._ is paid “famulis domini episcopi Londinensis organum musicum
afferentibus.” This was Bishop Compton, who crowned William III.,
and who had been a gentleman commoner of the College. The present
organ, perhaps the largest in Oxford, is mainly due to the skill and
liberality of Leighton George Hayne, D.Mus., and sometime Coryphæus of
the University, who, with the support of the late Archbishop of York,
revived the musical service which had for many years been interrupted.
All sorts of games of dice, chess, and others giving opportunity of
losing money, were prohibited, especially dice and other similar games
which give occasion for strife and often beggary to the player. An
exception was made for such games occasionally played, not in the hall,
for recreation only, when it did not interfere with study or divine
service. All Chaplains, poor clerks, servants, and other inhabitants of
the Hall were bound by this prohibition, and the Provost or his _locum
tenens_ were bound on pain of perjury to inflict the penalties which
might be necessary to stop these or other infractions of the statutes.
When stage plays came into vogue the College followed the fashion. In
the accounts of 1572-3, 3_s._ 8_d._ is paid “pro fabricatione scenae
in aula ad tragicam comoediam narrandam,” and 7_s._ 5_d._ “in expensis
tragicae comediae in natal. Xti.”
The chambers and studies were to be assigned to the scholars by the
Provost, who was to assign, except for special reasons, according to
seniority. There were to be at least two in each chamber unless the
status or pre-eminence of the quality of any of the scholars should
require otherwise. The arrangement of rooms adopted in the front
quadrangle when the College was rebuilt seems to retain a trace of the
old regulations. A large “chamber” with two “studies” recalls the days
when John Boast and Henry Ewbank were chamber-fellows or “chums” in
their youth, before the dark time when the younger man was the cause of
the elder being butchered alive for exercising his priestly functions
in England.[150] Nowadays in the rare case of two brothers or intimate
friends living together in a set of rooms, the old disposition is
reversed, the chamber becomes the joint study, and the two studies the
separate bed-chambers.
Except for urgent cause, or by leave of the Provost or his _locum
tenens_, the scholars were not to have meals except in the hall,
and they were to avoid, in accordance with the laws of temperance,
expensive and luxurious meals of all kinds, suppers and other eatings
and drinkings. The Provost or his _locum tenens_ was to restrain all
such excess.
The scholars were not to pass the night outside the College in the
town or its suburbs unless leave had been previously obtained from the
Provost, his _locum tenens_, or the senior in hall; and the application
for leave must specify the cause for which such leave is asked.
A Fellow, poor cleric, or Chaplain expelled was not to have any remedy
against the College by law or otherwise, and was to renounce any
right to such remedy under the obligation of an oath at the time of
his admission to the Hall. The College sometimes showed compassion to
former Fellows who fell into misfortune: 28th September, 1625, 50_s._
is paid to Mr. Lancaster formerly a Fellow, now reduced to the depths
of misery, and in following years a similar payment is made, the amount
being raised later to £4.