TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.
Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the footnotes have been
placed at the end of each chapter. Four digit items such as [1466] are
not footnote anchors but refer to a year.
A superscript is denoted by ^x or ^{xx}, for example L^d or Hon^{ble}.
Gothic font is indicated by double plus signs, ++in gothic font++.
Macrons over e and u are displayed correctly as ē and ū. Some latin
abbreviations are shown in the original text with an overline, for
example Hiberniæ when abbreviated is shown as Hibniæ with ibni
overlined. This overline is indicated in the etext using [= ] giving
H[=ibni]æ.
Basic fractions are displayed as ½ ¼ ¾; there are no other fractions
in this book.
Date ranges are displayed using - for example 1621-8, the same as the
original text.
Split-year dates are displayed with a / divider, for example 1600/1;
the original text shows 160 with a fraction-like ‘0 over 1’ in a
smaller font. The dual dates indicate the Julian (1600) and the
Gregorian (1601) year designation for dates between January 1st and
March 25th. Prior to 1752 dates in documents in British dominions
used the Julian calendar, in which the new year did not begin until
March 25th.
Some other minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.
[Illustration: (Seal of the College)]
TERCENTENARY CELEBRATION
JULY, 1892
PRESENTED
BY THE
PROVOST AND SENIOR FELLOWS
OF
TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN
[Illustration: POSVI DEVM ADIVTOREM MEVM
_Mortua anno
MIserICorDIæ._
HONI SOIT QVI MAL Y PENSE
SEMPER EADEM
_Nata Gronewiciæ
anno Christi
MDXXXIII.
6.Jd.Sept._
ELISABET D.G. ANGLIAE, FRANCIAE, HIBERNIAE, ET VERGINIAE REGINA,
FIDEI CHRISTIANAE PROPVGNATRIX ACERRIMA. NVNC IN [=DNO] REQVIESCENS.
_Virginis os habitumque geris, diuina virago,
Sed supra sexum dotes animumque virilem;
Quod sæpe altarum docuit rerum exitus ingens:
Vnde tibi et Regni populi debere fatentur,
Christiadumque cohors, odijs rumpantur vt hostes,
Quorum Diua tua rabies nil morte lucrata est._
_Vasta Semiramiden Babylon super æthera tollat,
Efferat et Didona suam Sidonia tellus,
Gens Esthren Iudæa, Camillam Volsca propago,
Aut Constantini matrem Byzantion ingens,
Atqúe alias aliæ gentes: tete Anglia fortis
Vt quondam fructa est, sic nunc clarescat alumna._
_Isaac Oliuier
effigiabat._
_Crispin van de Passe
incidebat._
_procurante Joanne
Waldnelio._
_P.B.M.Q. ludeb._
]
THE BOOK
OF
TRINITY COLLEGE
DUBLIN
1591 [Illustration: (original Seal of the College)] 1891
BELFAST
MARCUS WARD & CO., LIMITED, ROYAL ULSTER WORKS
LONDON AND NEW YORK
DUBLIN: HODGES, FIGGIS & CO., LIMITED
1892
[Illustration: (Publisher colophon)]
The Committee appointed by the Provost and Senior Fellows of
Trinity College, Dublin, to make arrangements for the celebration
of the Tercentenary of the Foundation of the University of Dublin
and of Trinity College, to be held in July, 1892, requested the
following to act as a Sub-Committee to superintend the bringing out
of a volume in which there should be a record of the chief events
of the College for the last three centuries, a description of its
buildings, &c.:--
Rev. JOHN W. STUBBS, D.D.
Rev. THOMAS K. ABBOTT, B.D., Litt.D., Librarian.
Rev. JOHN P. MAHAFFY, D.D., Mus. Doc.
EDWARD DOWDEN, LL.D., Litt.D.
ULICK RALPH BURKE, M.A.
WILLIAM MACNEILE DIXON, LL.B., and
E. PERCEVAL WRIGHT, M.A., M.D.;
the last named to be the Convener.
Through illness, Professor E. Dowden was unable to take any
active part in the preparation of this volume, the publication of
which was undertaken by the firm of Messrs. Marcus Ward & Co.,
Limited, of Belfast. The time at the disposal of the writers of the
following chapters was extremely short, and they tender an apology
for the want of completeness, which, on an exact scrutiny of their
work, will, they fear, be only too conspicuous; but it is hoped
that the volume may be acceptable as a sketch towards a History of
the College.
The name of the writer of each chapter is given in the Table
of Contents, and each author is to be regarded as accountable
only for his own share of the work. The Committee’s grateful
thanks are due to Mr. Louis Fagan, of the Department of Prints
and Drawings, British Museum, for the help he has given them in
having reproductions made from rare engravings of some of the
distinguished Graduates of the University.
[Illustration: (Decorative section heading)]
CONTENTS.
PAGE
CHAPTER I.--FROM THE FOUNDATION TO THE CAROLINE CHARTER, by the
Rev. J. P. Mahaffy, D.D., 1
” II.--FROM THE CAROLINE REFORM TO THE SETTLEMENT OF
WILLIAM III., by the Rev. J. P. Mahaffy, D.D., 29
” III.--THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY UP TO 1758, by the Rev.
J. P. Mahaffy, D.D., 47
” IV.--FROM 1758 TO THE CLOSE OF THE CENTURY, by the Rev.
J. P. Mahaffy, D.D., 73
” V.--DURING THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, by the Rev.
J. W. Stubbs, D.D., 91
” VI.--THE OBSERVATORY, DUNSINK, by Sir Robert Ball, LL.D.,
Astronomer-Royal, 131
” VII.--THE LIBRARY, by the Rev. T. K. Abbott, B.D.,
Litt.D., Librarian, 147
” VIII.--THE EARLY BUILDINGS, by Ulick R. Burke, M.A., 183
” IX.--DISTINGUISHED GRADUATES, by William MacNeile
Dixon, LL.B., 235
” X.--THE COLLEGE PLATE, by the Rev. J. P. Mahaffy, D.D., 267
” XI.--THE BOTANICAL GARDENS AND HERBARIUM, by E. Perceval
Wright, M.A., M.D., 275
” XII.--THE UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE OFFICERS, 1892, 285
TERCENTENARY ODE, 291
[Illustration: (Decorative section ending)]
[Illustration: (Decorative section heading)]
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
PAGE
PORTRAIT OF QUEEN ELIZABETH, _Frontispiece._
THE OLDEST MAP OF THE COLLEGE, 7
FAC-SIMILE OF PROVOST ASHE’S PRAYER, 10
THE EARLIEST EXTANT COLLEGE SEAL, 11
THE SOUTH BACK OF THE ELIZABETHAN COLLEGE, 25
FAC-SIMILE OF TITLE-PAGE, ARCHBISHOP MARSH’S “LOGIC,” 37
CHAPEL PLATE (DATED 1632 AND 1638), 44
TITLE-PAGE OF THE CENTENARY SERMON, JANUARY 9, 1693/4, 52
THE OLD CLOCK TOWER, 62
CANDELABRUM, EXAMINATION HALL, 130
DUNSINK OBSERVATORY, 133
SOUTH EQUATORIAL, DUNSINK, 142
MERIDIAN ROOM, DUNSINK, 144
OLD PRINT OF LIBRARY, 1753, 152
INTERIOR OF LIBRARY, 1858, 154
A PAGE FROM THE “BOOK OF KELLS,” 161
SATCHEL OF THE “BOOK OF ARMAGH,” 164
SHRINE OF THE “BOOK OF DIMMA,” 165
BOOK RECESSES IN LIBRARY, 176
INNER STAIRCASE IN LIBRARY, 177
INTERIOR OF LIBRARY, 1860, 178
THE LIBRARY, 1891, 179
LIBRARY STAIRCASE AND ENTRANCE TO READING ROOM, 180
ROYAL ARMS NOW PLACED IN LIBRARY, 181
FRONT OF TRINITY COLLEGE, 1728, 183
GROUND PLAN OF TRINITY COLLEGE, FROM ROCQUE’S MAP OF
DUBLIN, 1750, 187
_Ampelopsis veitchii_, 190
TRINITY COLLEGE--WEST FRONT, 191
THE PROVOST’S HOUSE, FROM GRAFTON STREET, 195
DRAWING ROOM, PROVOST’S HOUSE, 197
TOP OF STAIRCASE, REGENT’S HALL, 200
PARLIAMENT AND LIBRARY SQUARES, 201
LIBRARY SQUARE, 202
THE CHAPEL, 204
BALDWIN’S MONUMENT, 211
THE BELL TOWER, FROM THE PROVOST’S GARDEN, 215
THE DINING HALL, VIEWED FROM LIBRARY SQUARE, 218
INTERIOR OF DINING HALL, 219
THE ENGINEERING SCHOOL, FROM COLLEGE PARK, 220
ENTRANCE TO ENGINEERING SCHOOL, 222
HALL AND STAIRCASE, ENGINEERING SCHOOL, 223
CARVINGS AT BASE OF STAIRCASE, 224
THE PRINTING OFFICE, FROM NEW SQUARE, 225
VIEW IN THE COLLEGE PARK--LIBRARY--ENGINEERING SCHOOL, 228
THE MEDICAL SCHOOL, 229
THE MUSEUM (TENNIS COURT), 230
THE DISSECTING ROOM, 231
THE PRINTING OFFICE, 233
PULPIT IN DINING HALL, 234
PORTRAIT OF ARCHBISHOP USSHER, 238
PORTRAIT OF WILLIAM KING, D.D., 241
BUST OF DR. DELANY, 243
PORTRAIT OF WILLIAM MOLYNEUX, 244
BUST OF DEAN SWIFT, 244
PORTRAIT OF THOMAS SOUTHERNE, 245
PORTRAIT OF WILLIAM CONGREVE, 247
PORTRAIT OF BISHOP BERKELEY, 249
PORTRAIT OF EARL OF CLARE, 256
PORTRAIT OF LORD PLUNKET, 258
FAC-SIMILE OF ORIGINAL MS. OF “THE BURIAL OF SIR JOHN
MOORE,” 260, 261
BUST OF JAMES MACCULLAGH, 263
PORTRAIT OF CHARLES LEVER, 263
TOMB OF BISHOP BERKELEY, 264
COMMUNION CUPS--MEADE, 1760; GARRET WESLEY, 1751;
CAUFIELD, 1690, 267
SALVER--GILBERT, 1734, 268
THE COLLEGE MACE, 271
PUNCH BOWLS--PLUNKET, 1702; MEADE, 1708, 272
DUNCOMBE CUP, 1680; PALLISER CUP, 1709, 273
EPERGNE (REIGN OF GEORGE II.), 274
BOTANICAL GARDENS--THE POND. WINTER, 281
[Illustration: (Decorative section ending)]
[Illustration: (Decorative chapter heading)]
CHAPTER I.[1]
FROM THE FOUNDATION TO THE CAROLINE CHARTER.
_Laudamus te, benignissime Pater, pro serenissimis,
Regina Elizabetha hujus Collegii conditrice,
Jacobo ejusdem munificentissimo auctore,
Carolo conservatore,
Ceterisque benefactoribus nostris._
THE CAROLINE GRACE.
The origin of the University of Dublin is not shrouded in darkness,
as are the origins of the Universities of Bologna and Oxford. The
details of the foundation are well known, in the clear light of
Elizabethan times; the names of the promoters and benefactors are
on record; and yet when we come to examine the dates current in
the histories of the University and the relative merits of the
promoters, there arise many perplexities. The grant of the Charter
is in the name of Queen Elizabeth, and we record every day in the
College our gratitude for her benefaction; but it is no secret that
she was urged to this step by a series of advisers, of whom the
most important and persuasive remained in the background.
The project of founding a University in Ireland had long been
contemplated, and the current histories record various attempts,
as old as 1311, to accomplish this end--attempts which all failed
promptly, and produced no effect upon the country, unless it were
to afford to the Roman Catholic prelates, who petitioned James II.
to hand over Trinity College to their control, some colour for
their astonishing preamble.[2] It is not the province of these
chapters to narrate or discuss these earlier schemes. One feature
they certainly possessed--the very feature denied them in the
petition just named. Most of them were essentially ecclesiastical,
and closely attached to the Cathedral corporations. There seems
never to have been a secular teacher appointed in any of them--not
to speak of mere frameworks, like that of the University of
Drogheda. Another feature also they all present: they are without
any reasonable endowment, the only serious offer being that of
Sir John Perrott in 1585, who proposed the still current method
of exhibiting English benevolence towards Ireland by robbing one
Irish body to endow another. In this case, S. Patrick’s Cathedral,
“because it was held in superstitious reverence by the people,”
was to be plundered of its revenues to set up two Colleges--one
in Armagh and one in Limerick. This plan was thwarted, not only
by the downfall of its originator (Perrott), but by the active
opposition of an eminent Churchman--Adam Loftus, the Archbishop
of Dublin. The violent mutual hostility of these two men may have
stimulated each to promote a public object disadvantageous to the
other. Perrott urged the disendowment of S. Patrick’s because he
knew that the Archbishop had retained a large pecuniary interest
in it. Perhaps Loftus promoted a rival plan because he feared
some future revival of Perrott’s scheme. Both attest their bitter
feelings: for in his defence upon his trial Perrott calls the
Archbishop his deadly enemy; and Loftus, in the Latin speech made
in Trinity College when he resigned the Provostship, takes special
credit for having resisted the overbearing fury of Perrott, and
having gained for Leinster the College which the other sought to
establish either in Armagh or Limerick, exposed to the dangers of
rebellion and devastation.[3] But before this audience, who knew
the circumstances, he does not make any claim to have been the
original promoter of the foundation. Even in his defence of S.
Patrick’s, he had a supporter perhaps more persuasive, because he
was more respected. It is mentioned in praise of Henry Ussher, “he
so lucidly and with such strength of arguments defended the rights
of S. Patrick’s Church, which Perrott meant to turn into a College,
that he averted that dire omen.”[4] Nevertheless, the Archbishop is
generally credited with being the real founder of Trinity College,
and indeed his speeches to the citizens of Dublin, of which two are
still extant, might lead to that conclusion. But other and more
potent influences were at work.
Some years before, Case, in the preface to his _Speculum Moralium
Quæstionum_ (1585), had addressed the Chancellors of Cambridge and
Oxford conjointly on the crying want of a proper University, to
subdue the turbulence and barbarism of the Irish. This appeal was
not original, or isolated, or out of sympathy with the age. Such
laymen as Spencer, and as Bryskett, Spencer’s host near Dublin,
must have long urged similar arguments. In 1547, Archbishop George
Browne had forwarded to Sir William Cecil a scheme for establishing
a College with the revenues of the then recently suppressed S.
Patrick’s.[5] Another scheme is extant, endorsed by Cecil, dated
October, 1563, with salaries named, but not the source of the
endowment. In 1571, John Ussher, in applying for the rights of
staple at the port of Dublin, says in his petition that he intends
to leave his fortune to found a College in Dublin. In 1584, the
Rev. R. Draper petitions Burghley to have the University founded at
Trim, in the centre of the Pale, as this site possessed a waterway
to Drogheda, and was furnished with great ancient buildings, then
deserted, and falling into decay.
But in addition to these appeals of sentiment, there were practical
men at work. Two successive Deputies, Sir Henry Sidney and Sir John
Perrott, had urged the necessity of some such foundation (1565,
1585), and the former had even offered pecuniary aid. The Queen,
long urged in this direction, had ultimately been persuaded, as
appears from her Warrant, that the City of Dublin was prepared
to grant a site, and help in building the proposed College; and
the City, no doubt, had been equally persuaded that the Queen
would endow the site. The practical workers in this diplomacy have
been set down in history as Cambridge men. This is one of those
true statements which disguise the truth. The real agitators in
the matter were Luke Challoner and Henry Ussher. A glance at Mr.
Gilbert’s _Assembly Rolls of the City of Dublin_ the reign of
Elizabeth will show how both family names occur perpetually in
the Corporation as mayors, aldermen, etc.[6] The very site of the
future College had been let upon lease to a Challoner and to the
uncle of an Ussher.[7] These were the influential City families
which swayed the Corporation. Henry Ussher,[8] who had become
Archdeacon of Dublin, went as emissary to Court; Challoner[9]
superintended the gathering of funds and the laying out of the
site, which his family had rented years before. It was therefore
by Dublin men--by citizens whose sons had merely been educated
at Cambridge, and had learned there to appreciate University
culture--that Trinity College was really founded. They had learned
to compare Cambridge and Oxford, with Dublin, life, and when they
came home to their paternal city, they felt the wide difference.
Queen Elizabeth, in her Warrant, puts the case quite differently.
She does not, indeed, make the smallest mention of Loftus, but of
the prayer of the City of Dublin, preferred by Henry Ussher, thus:
_December 29, 1592._
ELIZABETH, R.
Trustee and right well beloved we greet you well, where[as]
by your Lrēs, and the rest of our Councell joyned with you,
directed to our Councell here, wee perceive that the Major and
the Cittizens of Dublin are very well disposed to grant the
scite of the Abbey of Allhallows belonging to the said Citty to
the yearly value of Twenty pounds to serve for a Colledge for
learning, whereby knowledge and Civility might be increased by
the instruction of our people there, whereof many have usually
heretofore used to travaile into ffrance Italy and Spaine to
gett learning in such forreigne universities, whereby they have
been infected with poperie and other ill qualities, and soe
became evill subjects, &c.[10]
The Usshers and the Challoners had no inclination to go to
Spain or France, nor is it likely that they ever thought they
would prevent the Irish Catholic priesthood from favouring this
foreign education. They desired to ennoble their city by giving
it a College similar to those of Oxford and Cambridge, and they
succeeded.
The extant speech of Adam Loftus, to which I have already referred,
makes no allusion to these things. His argument is homely enough.
Guarding himself from preaching the doctrine of good works,
which would have a Papistical complexion, he urges the Mayor
and Corporation to consider how the trades had suffered by the
abolition of the monasteries, under the previous Sovereign; how
the city of Oxford and town of Cambridge have flourished owing
to their Colleges; how the prosperity of Dublin, now depending
on the presence of the Lord Deputy and his retinue and the Inns
of Court, will be increased by a College, which would bring
strangers, and with them money, to the citizens. Thus it will be
a means of civilising the nation and enriching the city, and will
enable many of their children to work their own advancement, “and
in order thereto ye will be pleased to call a Common Council and
deliberate thereon, having first informed the several Masters of
every Company of the pregnant likelihood of advantage,” etc. Again,
“it is my hearty desire that you would express your and the City’s
thankfulness to Her Majesty,” etc.
This harangue, in which “our good Lord the Archbushopp” gives
himself the whole credit of the transaction, is said to have
been delivered “soon after the Quarter Sessions of St. John the
Baptist”--viz., about July, but in what year I cannot discover.
Mr. Gilbert says, “_after Easter_, in the year 1590.” In Loftus’
Latin speech occurs--“As soon as I had proposed it to the Mayor
and Sheriffs, without any delay they assembled in full conclave
and voted the whole site of the monastery.” But in the meetings of
the Dublin Council there is no allusion whatever to this speech,
no thanks to the Queen, no resolution on the matter whatever, till
under the date “Fourth Friday after December, 1590” (33 Elizabeth),
we find the following modest business entry:--“Forasmoch as there
is in this Assembly by certayne well-disposed persons petition
preferred,[11] declaring many good and effectual persuacions to
move our furtherance for setting upp and erecting a Collage for
the bringing upp of yeouth to learning, whereof we, having a good
lyking, do, so farr as in us lyeth, herby agree and order that the
scite of Alhallowes and the parkes thereof shalbe wholly gyven for
the erection of a Collage there; and withall we require that we
may have conference with the preferrers of the said peticion to
conclude how the same shalbe fynished.”[12] The Queen’s Warrant is
signed the 29th December, 1592 (34 Elizabeth).[13] It is hard to
find any logical place for the Archbishop’s speech, either before,
between, or after these dates and documents.
At all events, the Queen gave a Warrant and Charter, some small
Crown rents on various estates in the South and West of Ireland,
and presently, upon further petition, a yearly gift of nearly £400
from the Concordatum Fund, which latter the College enjoyed till
the present century, when it was resumed by the Government. From
the Elizabethan Crown rents the College now derives about £5 per
annum. The Charter was surrendered for that of Charles I.
Thus the benevolences of Elizabeth, like the buildings of her
foundation, have dwindled away and disappeared.
The Archbishop’s sounding words have had their weight in benefiting
his own memory, as has been shown, beyond his merits in this matter.
The modest gift of the Corporation of Dublin, consisting of 28
acres of derelict land partly invaded by the sea, has become a
splendid property, in money value not less than £10,000 a-year, in
convenience and in dignity to the College perfectly inestimable.
[Illustration: THE OLDEST MAP OF THE COLLEGE (1610).]
The necessary sum for repairing the decayed Abbey of All Hallowes,
and for what new buildings the College required, was raised by
an appeal of the Lord Deputy Fitzwilliam (dated March 11, 1591)
to the owners of landed property all over Ireland. The list of
these contributions is very curious, and also very liberal, if we
consider that the following sums represent perhaps eight times as
much in modern days:--
_£ s. d._
“The Lord Deputy, 200 0 0
Archbishop Adam Loftus, 100 0 0
Sir Thomas Norreys, Vice-President
of Munster, 100 0 0
Advanced by his means in the Province
of Munster, 100 0 0
Sir Francis Shane, 100 0 0
” ” a-year for his life, 20 0 0
Sir Warham St. Leger, 50 0 0
Sir Richard Dyer, 100 0 0
Sir Henry Bagnall, 100 0 0
Sir Richard Bingham, 20 0 0
The Province of Connaught by same, 100 0 0
The County of Galway by same, 100 0 0
The town of Drogheda, 40 0 0
The city of Dublin, 27 0 0
A Concordatum from the Privy
Council, 200 0 0
Alderman John Foster (for the Iron-work), 30 0 0
Lord Chief Justice Gardiner, 20 0 0
Lord Primate of Ireland [Garvey], 76 0 0
Sir Henry Harrington, 50 0 0
Thomas Jones, Bishop of Meath, 50 0 0
The gentlemen of the Barony of
Lecale, 59 0 0
Sir Hugh M‘Ginnis, with other gentlemen
of his county [Down], 140 0 0
The clergy of Meath, 30 0 0
Thomas Molyneux, Chancellor of the
Exchequer, 40 0 0
Luke Chaloner, D.D., 10 0 0
Edward Brabazon, 15 0 0
Sir George Bourchier, 30 0 0
Christopher Chartell, 40 0 0
Sir Turlough O’Neill, 100 0 0
“These sums amount to over £2,000, and they must have been
considerably supplemented, for we have a return made by Piers
Nugent with respect to one of the baronies in the County of
Westmeath, in which he gives the names of eleven gentlemen in
that barony who are prepared to contribute according to their
freeholds, proportionally to other freeholders of Westmeath.
“Money, however, came in very slowly, specially from the South of
Ireland; Sir Thomas Norreys informed Dr. Chaloner that the County
of Limerick agreed to give 3s. 4d. out of every Plough-land,
and he promised to do his best to draw other counties to some
contribution, but he adds, ‘I do find devotion so cold as that I
shall hereafter think it a very hard thing to compass so great a
work upon so bare a foundation.’
“Dr. Luke Chaloner seems to have been the active agent in
corresponding with the several contributors, and to have been
most diligent in collecting subscriptions.”[14]
The coldness of Limerick--perhaps disappointed at the failure of
Perrott’s scheme--contrasted with the zeal of Dublin. Dr. Stubbs
quotes from Fuller, the Church historian, a statement which the
latter had heard from credible persons then resident in Dublin,
that during the building of the College--that is to say, for
over a year--it never rained, except at night. This historically
incredible statement is of real value in showing the feelings of
the people who were persuaded of it. The great interest and keen
hopes of the city in the founding of the College are expressed in
this legendary way.
Thus by the earnestness and activity of some leading citizens
of Dublin, supported by the voice of educated opinion in
Cambridge, the eloquence of the Archbishop, and the sound policy
of Queen Elizabeth’s advisers, Trinity College was founded. The
foundation-stone was laid by the Mayor of Dublin, Thomas Smith, and
for at least 150 years the liberality of the Corporation of Dublin
was commemorated in our prayers.
“We give Thee thanks for the Most Serene Princess Elizabeth, our
most illustrious Foundress; for King James and King Charles, our
most munificent Benefactors, and for our present Sovereign, our
Most Gracious Conservator and Benefactor; for the Right Honourable
the Lord Mayor, together with his brethren, the Aldermen, and
the whole assembly of the citizens of Dublin, and all our other
benefactors, through whose Bounty we are here maintained for the
exercise of Piety and the increase of Learning,” etc.[15]
[Illustration: THE PRAYER BEFORE SERMON.
_Let thy merciful Ears, O Lord, be open to the Prayers of thy
Humble Servants, and grant that thy_ Holy Spirit _may direct and
guide us in all our ways, and be more especially assistant to us in
the Holy Actions of this day, in enabling us with_ grateful Hearts
_and_ zealous Endeavors _to celebrate this Pious_ Commemoration,
_and to answer to our Studies and Improvements all the great and
useful ends of our_ Munificent Founders _and_ Benefactors. _We
render thee humble Praise and Thanks, O Lord, for the Most Serene
Princess Queen_ Elizabeth, _our_ Illustrious Foundress; _for
King_ James _the_ First, _our most_ Liberal Benefactor; _King_
Charles _the_ First _and_ Second, _our_ Gratious _and_ Munificent
Conservators; _for the protection and bounty we have received
from their present_ Majesties, _our most_ Indulgent Patrons _and_
Restorers; _for the Favour of our present Governours, the_ Right
Honorable _the_ Lords-Justices; _for the_ Lord Mayor _and Goverment
of this_ City, _our Generous Benefactors_; _for the_ Nobility,
Clergy, _and_ Gentry _of this Kingdom_; _thrô whose Bounty and
Charitable Generosity we are here Educated and Established_;
_for the Improvement of Piety and Religion, the advancement of
Learning, and to supply the growing necessities of Church and
State_; _beseeching thee to bless them all, their Posterity,
Successors, Relations, and Dependants, with both_ Temporal _and_
Eternal _blessings, and to give us Grace to live_ worthy _of these
thy Mercies, and that as we grow in_ Years _so we may_ grow _in_
Wisdom, _and_ Knowledg, _and_ Vertue, _and all that is praiseworthy
thrô_ Jesus Christ _our_ Lord]
Such being the true history of the foundation of Trinity College,
as the mother of an University, to be a Corporation with a common
seal, it was natural that upon that seal the Corporation should
assume a device implying its connection with Dublin. Accordingly,
though there is no formal record of the granting of arms to the
College, the present arms, showing it to be a place of learning,
Royal and Irish, add the Castle of the Seal of the Corporation
of Dublin. Dr. Stubbs quotes (note, p. 320) a description of
it in Latin elegiacs, of which the _arx ignita_--towers _fired
proper_--are a modification of the Dublin arms,[16] which I have
found on illuminated rolls of the age of Charles I. preserved by
the City. But this description is undated, and although he ascribes
it to the early years of the 17th century, it will be hard to prove
it older than the seal extant in clear impressions, which bears
the date 1612 above the shield, and upon it the towers, not fired,
but _domed and flagged_. This date may even imply that the arms
were then granted, and that it is the original form.[17] The
recurrence of the domes and flags upon some of our earliest plate
(dated 1666) gives additional authority for this feature, nor have
we any distinct or dated evidence for the _fired towers_, adopted
in the 17th century by the City also, earlier than the time of
Charles II., when they are given in a Heraldic MS. preserved in the
Bermingham Tower. I have digressed into this antiquarian matter in
proof of my opening assertion that the details of the foundation
are often obscure, while the main facts are perfectly clear.
[Illustration: THE EARLIEST EXTANT COLLEGE SEAL.]
Let us now turn from our new-founded College to cast a glance
at the City of Dublin of that day, as it is described to us by
Elizabethan eye-witnesses, and as we can gather its features from
the early records of the City and the College. Mr. Gilbert has
quoted from Stanihurst’s account of Dublin, published in 1577, a
curious picture of the wealth and hospitality displayed by the
several Mayors and great citizens of his acquaintance; and that
the Mayoralty was indeed a heavy tax upon the citizen who held
it, appears from the numerous applications of Mayors, recorded in
the City registers, for assistance, and the frequent voting of
subsidies of £100, though care is taken to warn the citizens that
this is to establish no precedent. The City is described as very
pleasant to live in, placed in an exceptionally beautiful valley,
with sea, rivers, and mountains around. Wealthy and civilised as it
was, it would have been much more so, but that the port was open,
and the river full of shoals, and that by the management of the
citizen merchants a great mart of foreign traders, which used to
assemble outside the gates and undersell them, had been abolished.
The somewhat highly-coloured picture drawn by Stanihurst is
severely criticised by Barnabe Rich,[18] who gives a very different
account, telling us that the architecture was mean, and the whole
City one mass of taverns, wherein was retailed at an enormous
price, ale, which was brewed by the richer citizens’ wives. The
moral character of the retailers is described as infamous. This
liquor traffic, and the extortion of the bakers, are, to Rich,
the main features in Dublin. The Corporation records show orders
concerning the keeping of the pavements, the preserving of the
purity of the water-supply, which came from Tallaght, and the
cleansing of the streets from filth and refuse thrown out of the
houses. These orders alternate with regulations to control the
beggars and the swine which swarmed in the streets. Furthermore,
says Stanihurst--“There are so manie other extraordinarie beggars
that dailie swarme there, so charitablie succored, as that they
make the whole civitie in effect their hospitall.” There was a
special officer, the City beadle, entitled “master” or “warden” of
the beggars, and “custos” or “overseer” of the swine, whose duty
it was to banish strange beggars from the City, and keep the swine
from running about the streets.[19]
In one of the orders relating to this subject, dated the 4th Friday
after 25th December, 1601, we find the following:--“Wher[as]
peticion is exhibitid by the commons, complaineing that the
auncient lawes made, debarring of swyne coming in or goeing in
the streetes of this cittie, is not put in execution, by reyson
whearof great danger groweth therby, as well for infection, as
also the poore infantes lieing under stales and in the streetes
subject to swyne, being a cattell much given to ravening, as
well of creatures as of other thinges, and alsoe the cittie and
government therof hardlie spoken of by the State, wherin they
requirid a reformacion: it is therfore orderid and establyshid,
by the aucthoritie of this assemblie, that yf eny sowe, hogge, or
pigge shalbe found or sene, ether by daie or nyght, in the streetes
within the cittie walles, it shalbe lawfull for everye man to kill
the same sowe, hogge, or pigge, and after to dispose the same at
his or their disposition, without making recompence to such as
owneth the same.”
Thus this present characteristic of the country parts of Ireland
then infected the capital. I have quoted the text of the order for
reasons which will presently appear.
The City walls, with their many towers, and protected by a
fosse, enclosed but a small area of what we consider Old Dublin.
S. Patrick’s and its Liberty, under the jurisdiction of the
Archbishop, who lived in the old Palace (S. Sepulchre’s) beside
that Cathedral, was still outside the walls, which excluded even
most of Patrick Street, and was apparently defended by ramparts of
its own. Thomas Street was still a suburb, and lined with thatched
houses, for we find an order (1610) that henceforth, owing to
the danger of fire[20] in the suburbs, in S. Thomas Street, S.
Francis Street, in Oxmantown, or in S. Patrick Street, “noe house
which shall from hensforth be built shalbe covered with thach, but
either with slate, tyle, shingle, or boord, upon paine of x.li.
current money of England.” We may therefore imagine these suburbs
as somewhat similar to those of Galway in the present day, where
long streets of thatched cabins lead up to the town. Such I take to
have been the row of houses outside Dame’s Gate, the eastern gate
of the city, which is marked on the map of 1610. They only occupy
the north side of the way, and for a short distance. There had long
been a public way to Hogging or Hoggen Green, one of the three
commons of the City, and the condition of this exit from Dublin may
be inferred from an order made in 1571, which the reader will find
below.[21]
The reader will not object to have some more details about the
state of this College Green, now the very heart of the City, in
the days when the College was founded. In 1576 the great garden
and gate of the deserted Monastery of All Hallowes was ordered to
be allotted for the reception of the infected, and the outer gate
of All Hallowes to be repaired and locked. In the next year (and
again in 1603), it is ordered that none but citizens shall pasture
their cattle on this and the other greens. It is ordered in 1585
that no unringed swine shall be allowed to feed upon the Green,
being noisome and hurtful, and “coming on the strand greatly hinder
thincrease of the fyshe;” the tenant of All Hallowes, one Peppard,
shall impound or kill them, and allow no flax to be put into the
ditches, “for avoyding the hurte to thincrease of fyshe.” In the
same year the use and keeping of the Green is leased for seven
years to Mr. Nicholas Fitzsymons, to the end the walking places
may be kept clean, and no swyne or forren cattle allowed to injure
them. In 1602 Sir George Carye is granted a part of the Green
to build a Hospital, and presently Dr. Challoner and others are
granted another to build a Bridewell; and this is marked on the map
of 1610, near the site of the present S. Andrew’s Church.[22]
This is our evidence concerning the ground between the College and
the City--an interval which might well make the founders speak of
the former as _juxta_ Dublin. It was a place unoccupied between the
present Castle and College gates, with the exception of a row of
cottages, probably thatched, forming a short row at the west end
and north side of Dame Street, and under that name; opposite to
this was the ruined church of S. Andrew. On the Green were pigs and
cattle grazing; refuse of various kinds was cast out in front of
the houses of Dame Street, despite the Corporation order; a little
stream crossed this space close to the present College gate, and
the only two buildings close at hand, when the student looked out
of his window or over the wall, were a hospital for the infected,
by the river, and a bridewell on his way to the City.
Further off, the view was interesting enough. The walled City,
with its gates, crowned the hill of Christ Church, and the four
towers of the Castle were plainly visible. A gate, over a fosse,
led into the City, where first of all there lay on the left hand
the Castle entrance, with the ghastly heads of great rebels still
exposed on high poles. Here the Lord Deputy and his men-at-arms
kept their state, and hither the loyal gentry from the country came
to express their devotion and obtain favours from the Crown. In the
far distance to the south lay the Dublin and Wicklow mountains,
not as they now are, a delightful excursion for the student on
his holiday, but the home of those wild Irish whose raids up to
the City walls were commemorated by the feast of Black Monday at
Cullenswood, whither the citizens went well guarded, and caroused,
to assert themselves against the natives who had once surprised
and massacred 500 of them close to that wood. The river, the sea,
and the Hill of Howth, held by the Baron of Howth in his Castle,
closed the view to the east. The upland slopes to the north were
near no wild country, and therefore Oxmantown and S. Mary’s Abbey
were already settled on the other bank of the river.
We must remember also, as regards the civilisation of Dublin,
that though the streets swarmed not only with beggars and swine,
but with rude strangers from the far country, yet the wealthy
citizens were not only rich and hospitable, but advanced enough
to send their sons to Cambridge. This is proved by the Usshers
and Challoners, and we may be sure these were not solitary cases.
As regards education, there are free schools and grammar schools
constantly mentioned in the records of the time. It is well known
that one Fullerton, a very competent Scotchman, was sent over by
James VI. of Scotland to promote that King’s interests, and that
he had a Hamilton for his assistant, who afterwards got great
grants of land for himself, as Lord Clandeboye, and also obtained
for the College those Crown rents which resulted in producing its
great wealth. Fullerton, a learned man, was ultimately placed in
the King’s household. Both were early nominated lay Fellows of the
College. These were people of education who understood how to teach.
But most probably the great want in Dublin was the want of books.
There must have been a very widespread complaint of this, when it
occurred to the army which had defeated the Spaniards at Kinsale
(in 1601) to give a large sum from their spoil for books to endow
the new College.[23] This sent the famous James Ussher to search
for books in England, and laid the foundation for that splendid
collection of which the Archbishop’s own books formed the next
great increase, obtained by the new military donation of Cromwell’s
soldiers in 1654. There is probably no other so great library in
the world endowed by the repeated liberality of soldiers. Still
we hear that, even after the founding of the collection, James
Ussher thought it necessary to go every third year to England, and
to spend in reading a month at Oxford, a month at Cambridge, and
a month in London, for the purpose of adding to that mass of his
learning which most of us would think already excessive. Yet it is
a pity that smaller men, in more recent days, did not follow his
example, and so save the College from that provincialism with which
it was infected even in our own recollection.
Let us now turn to the internal history of the College. The great
crises in the first century of its existence were the Rebellion
under Charles I. and the civil war under James II., ending with
the Settlements by which Charles II. and William III. secured the
future greatness of the Institution. This brief sketch cannot
enter into details, especially into the tedious internal quarrels
of the Provost and Fellows; we are only concerned with the
general character of the place, its religion, its morals, and its
intellectual tendencies. Upon all these questions we have hitherto
rather been put off with details than with a philosophical survey
of what the College accomplished.
It has been well insisted on by Mr. Heron, the Roman Catholic
historian of Trinity College, that the Charter of Elizabeth is
neither exclusive nor bigoted as regards creed. Religion, civility,
and learning are the objects to be promoted, and it is notorious
that the great Queen’s policy, as regards the first, was to
insist upon outward conformity with the State religion without
further inquisition. A considerable number of the Corporation
which endowed the new College were Roman Catholics, and we know
that even the Usshers had near relations of that creed. There was
no insistence that the Fellows should take orders--we know that
Provost Temple, and Fullerton and Hamilton, among the earliest
Fellows, were laymen,--and though in very early days the degree
of Doctor conferred was apparently always that in Theology, the
Charter provides for all the Faculties, and it was soon felt that
Theology and the training of clergy were becoming too exclusively
the work of the place. The constant advices from Chancellors and
from other advisers to give special advantages to the natives, and
the repeated attempts to teach the Irish language, and through its
medium to educate the Irish, show plainly that they understood
Elizabeth’s foundation as intended for the whole country, and more
especially for those of doubtful loyalty in their creed, who were
tempted to go abroad for their education.
“A certain illustrious Baron,” says Father Fitz-Simons, writing
in 1603, “whose lady, my principal benefactress, sent his son to
Trinity College. Notwithstanding my obligations to them for my
support, I, with the utmost freedom, earnestness, and severity,
informed and taught them, that it was a most impious thing, and a
detestable scandal, to expose their child to such education. The
boy was taken away at once, and so were others, after that good
example. The College authorities are greatly enraged at this, as
they had never before attracted any [Roman Catholic] pupil of
respectability, and do not now hope to get any for the future.
Hence I must be prepared for all the persecution which their
impiety and hatred can bring down upon me.”[24]
On the other hand, the early Provosts imported from Cambridge,
Travers, Alvey, Temple, were men who were baulked in their English
promotion by their acknowledged Puritanism--a school created or
promoted by that desperate bigot Cartwright, who preached the
most violent Genevan doctrines from his Chair of Divinity in
Cambridge. But these men, who certainly were second to none in
the intolerance of their principles, were themselves in danger of
persecution from the Episcopal party in England. Complaints were
urged against Temple for neglecting to wear a surplice in Chapel--a
great stumbling-block in those days; the Puritanism of the College
was openly assailed, so that its Governors were rather occupied
in defending themselves than in attacking the creed of others.
Any sect which is in danger of persecution is compelled so far to
advocate toleration; we may be sure that the Irish Fellows who
lived among Catholics in a Catholic nation curbed any excessive
zeal on the part of the Puritan Provosts; and so we find that they
did not scruple to admit natives whom they suspected, or even
knew, to be Papists. Moreover, the Fellows and their Provost were
very busy in constitution-mongering. They had the power by Charter
of making and altering statutes--a source of perpetual dispute;
and, besides, the Plantation of Ulster by James I. in 1610 gave
them their first large estates, which were secured to them by the
influence of Fullerton and Hamilton, already mentioned as Scottish
agents of the King. Provost Temple spent most of his time either in
framing statutes or in quarrelling about leases with his Fellows.
A review of the various documents still extant concerning these
quarrels shows that the first of the lay Provosts was not inferior
in importance to his two successors in the eighteenth century, and
that in his day all the main problems which have since agitated the
Corporation were raised and discussed.
In the first place we may name the distinction between University
and College, one often attempted by theorists, and which may
any day become of serious importance if a new College were
founded under the University, but one which has practically had
no influence in the history of Trinity College. We even find
such hybrid titles as Fellow of the University, and Professor
of the College, used by people who ought to have known the
impropriety.[25] Temple, with the consent of his Fellows, sought
to obtain a separate Charter for a University, and drew up, for
this and the College, Statutes which Dr. Stubbs has quoted.
The second point in Temple’s policy was an innovation which took
root, and transformed the whole history of the College. It was
the distinction of Senior and junior Fellows, not merely into
separate classes as regards salary and duties, but into Governors
and subjects. It was rightly felt that, after some years’ constant
lecturing, the Fellows who still adhered to the College should
have leisure for their studies, and for literary work, as well
as a better income, in reward of their services. But when Temple
made a College Statute that the Seniors should govern not only
the scholars and ordinary students, but also the Junior Fellows
and Probationers (which last correspond somewhat to our present
Non-Tutor Fellows), he soon came into conflict with the Charter,
which gave many privileges--the election, for example, of the
Provost--to all the Fellows without distinction; and on this
question arose a great dispute immediately on Temple’s death, there
being actually two Provosts elected--one (Mede) by the Seniors,
the other (R. Ussher) by the Juniors. Bedell was only elected by a
compromise between the two parties, with distinct protests on the
part of the Juniors.[26] The Caroline Statutes finally decided the
matter, and gave the whole control to the Seniors.
Whether this great change, introduced by Temple, and certainly
promoted by Ussher, has been a benefit or an injury to the College,
is a question not easy to answer. There is no doubt that a small
body, such as the Governing Board of Provost and Senior Fellows,
is far more likely to carry out a consistent policy, and even to
decide promptly, where discussion and divergence of opinion among
a larger number cause delay and paralyse action. But, on the other
hand, the concentration of power into the hands of a small and
irremovable body sets temptations before its members to look after
their own interests unduly, and cumulate upon themselves offices
and emoluments to the damage of the Corporation.
The reservation of a large number of offices to the Senior Fellows,
and the consequent appointment, occasionally, of incompetent
persons to discharge important duties, were the necessary result
of such an arrangement, and might be of great injury to the
Corporation. It might even result in the trafficking in offices,
or in acts of distinct injustice towards the other members of the
Corporation, which could not have been committed had the acts of
the Governing Body been subject to the public criticism and control
of the whole body of Fellows.
On the other hand, as some working Committee must be selected to
administer the affairs of the College, nothing was more obvious to
Temple or to Ussher than that those who had been Fellows for eight
or ten years should be preferred to those who had just entered
the Corporation. In a body, however, of celibates, with many good
livings and other promotions around them, it never occurred to
the framers of the Statute that new circumstances would arise
which made a Fellowship practically a life office, and thus placed
the government in the hands of a group of men, of whom many were
disabled by age, and, moreover, distracted by family cares. We
should not stare with more wonder at a Vice-Provost of 40, than
would Ussher have stared at a Junior Fellow of 40 years’ standing.
Had such things been even dimly foreseen, it would have been easy
to avoid the danger of accumulating emolument and office upon
incompetent persons by making the Governing Body elective from the
whole Corporation.
The third question which arose in Provost Temple’s day was the
proper leasing of the College estates. The tendency to take
present profit at the expense of our successors, or to postpone
the interests of the abstract Corporation to the claims of private
friendship, is nowhere more conspicuous than in the document Dr.
Stubbs has printed (p. 32), in which the Provost, and two Senior
Fellows, the greatest names at the foundation, and the most
attached friends of the College, James Ussher and Luke Challoner,
actually consent to lease for ever all the Ulster estates to Sir
James Hamilton, their old personal friend and colleague, who had
helped the College to obtain these lands from the King. Had the
earnest endeavours of these two excellent Senior Fellows been
carried out, the College would not have owned nearly so many
hundreds, as it now owns thousands, in Ulster. This calamity was
only averted by the active interference of the Junior Fellows,
who obtained an order from the State forbidding the Board to give
perpetual leases. Nevertheless, so long as the Senior Fellows
divided the renewal fines, there was constant danger of the rents
of the College being cut down, and the incomes of the lessors
being increased: it redounds to the credit of this “Venetian
Council” that, after such vast opportunities of plundering public
property, only some few cases of breach of public trust can be
asserted against them. One of the most manifest attempts has been
just noticed. Another was partly carried through by Temple. He
obtained a lease, and appointed his son Seneschal of the Manor of
Slutmulrooney--a delightful title, but also a solid estate, which
he evidently coveted for a family property.[27]
We turn with satisfaction from such things to the two great names
in the College and the Irish Church which mark that period--Bedell
and James Ussher.
It was by rare good fortune that the nascent College secured such
a student as James Ussher. He must have made a name in any case;
yet the world is so apt to judge any system not by the average
outcome, but by the best and worst, that one such name was at
that moment of the last importance. He was the first great home
growth, and, though he refused the Provostship, he was so closely
connected with the College as Fellow, Lecturer in Divinity, as
Vice-Provost and as Vice-Chancellor, that no one has ever thought
of denying him and his fame to the College. His works and character
will be discussed in another chapter. What I am concerned with
is his attitude in the great ecclesiastical quarrels of the day.
It was no easy course to steer the Church of Ireland between the
“Scylla of Puritanism” and the “Charybdis of Popery.” Ussher
well knew that both were dangerous enemies. In his youth, owing
to his daily contact with Roman Catholic relatives, with Jesuit
controversialists, with the temporising policy of King James, who
offered further stages of toleration in return for subsidies of
money from the Irish Catholics, he was strong against the danger
on that side, and protested with prophetic wisdom that such
concessions would lead to rebellion and ruin in Ireland. In his old
age, when living constantly, either from his public importance or
his persecutions, in England, when witnessing and suffering from
the outrages of the English Revolution, he said in a conversation
with Evelyn, “that the Church would be destroyed by sectaries who
would in all likelihood bring in Popery.” The personal complexion
of his religion, his constant preaching, his great liberality
and good feeling towards pious Dissenting ministers, show that
he was a strong Protestant, and he always showed the strongest
apprehension of the ambitious policy of the Romish priesthood,
which he feared as a pressing danger; but, nevertheless, he was so
loyal a Churchman, that he was content to overlook many abuses in
the system which he administered.
It was this temper, so common in the Anglo-Irish Protestant,
which separates him in his policy from his eminent and amiable
contemporary, Bishop Bedell. But the latter was a stranger brought
over from England to be Provost, who, with all the generosity and
all the kindliness of his noble nature, set himself to instruct the
native Irish, and to work out the regeneration of these barbarians
by teaching them religion through the Irish language. So sterling
and single-hearted was the Bishop, that even the excited rebels
of 1641, amid their rapine and massacre, spared and respected the
excellent old man, and at his death honoured him with a great
public funeral. But it is plain from Primate Ussher’s dealings
with him that this policy of persuading the natives was not to the
Primate’s taste. Ussher probably believed that there were serious
dangers in the policy of reclaiming the natives through kindness,
and their priests through persuasion; and if the historians note it
as curious that, of all those who ruled the College, those by far
the most anxious to promote Irish studies were two Englishmen,[28]
Bedell and Marsh, it will be replied by many in Ireland, that this
contrast between the views of the English stranger, and of the
English settler who knows the country, is still perpetuated.
Such, then, was the attitude of the early rulers of the College,
and such their controversies. All of them that were not complete
Puritans felt what Provost Chappel says in his autobiographical
(iambic) poem--_Ruunt agmine facto in me profana turba Roma
Genevaque_. But from the very commencement the College was
Puritanical enough to save it from Ecclesiasticism. There is
therefore nothing strange in the habit of making lay Fellows read
short sermons (commonplaces) in the Chapel as part of their duty--a
practice only abandoned within the memory of our seniors in this
century.[29]
We turn to the few and meagre traditions concerning the moral
condition and conduct of the students. It must be remembered that
they came up at a very early age--12 to 14 years old are often
mentioned--and were only supposed to be partly educated when they
took their B.A. degree. There were special exercises and lectures
for three years more, and only with the M.A. were they properly
qualified. We may, indeed, be sure that the post-graduate studies
were far the more important for the serious section of the lads.
For they came up very raw and ignorant; they even had a special
schoolmaster to teach them the elements of Latin and Greek, and of
course the books they could command were both few and imperfect as
educational helps. I do not think that from the first the College
was at all abandoned to the poor or inferior classes. The very
earliest lists of names contain those of the most respectable
citizens; there were often favourite pupils of a Provost, or other
Don, who came from England, brought over with their teacher. Very
soon the Irish nobility began to send their sons. The Court of
Wards, established by King James I. in 1617, ordered that the
minors of important families in Ireland should be maintained and
educated in English habits, and in Trinity College, Dublin; and the
first instance of this kind is that of Farrall O’Gara, heir to Moy
Gara, County Sligo, who was to remain at the College from his 12th
to his 18th year. By this means many youths of quality, or at least
of important family, were enrolled among the students. The Earl of
Cork sent two sons in 1630; the famous Strafford two in 1637; and
we find Radcliffes, Wandesfords, and other aristocratic names. What
strikes us in the face of this is the extreme economy--or rather
the apparently very small prices mentioned in the various early
accounts printed by Dr. Stubbs from the Bursar’s books.[30]
This economy, however, only applies to the scholars supported by
the House, especially the _natives_, who had various privileges.
Fellow-Commoners, and Nobles, such as Strafford’s sons, were
probably allowed various indulgences. It is interesting to
notice that from the first a certain proportion of lads came, as
they now do, from the counties of England (especially Cheshire)
nearest to Dublin. On the other hand, while natives are carefully
distinguished from lads born in Ireland, I cannot find what test
was applied to determine a “native.” Even in 1613, 20 out of the
65 students are so denominated. The majority of the natives, says
Archbishop Marsh two generations later, had been born of English
parents, and were mostly of the meaner sort, but by having learned
to speak Irish with their Irish nurses, or fosterers, had acquired
some knowledge of the vernacular. But they could not read or write
it. The names quoted by Bedell in 1628 suggest that this account
of the parentage is true. Conway, Baker, Davis, and Burton are
admonished for being absent from Irish prayers. These are not
Irish names. It is also added by Marsh that most of these native
scholars, bred in the College, turned Papists in James II.’s reign.
This proves that they had Irish mothers, and would have afforded
James Ussher a strong confirmation for his policy as against
Bedell’s.
This society of students was then, as it has ever since been, very
various in race, social position, and parentage, and to this not a
little of its great intellectual activity may be traced. It should
also be added here that one of the strongest natural reasons for
the great prominence of the Anglo-Irish, and the extraordinary
distinctions they have attained in every great development of the
British Empire, is that the English settlers of Elizabethan and
Jacobean days were the boldest adventurers, the young men (often of
good family) of the greatest energy and courage, to be found among
the youth of England. They came to incur great risks, to brave many
dangers, but to attain great rewards. The rapidity of promotion
among the ecclesiastics, for example, is quite astonishing: Bishops
at 30, Archbishops and Chancellors at 40, are not uncommon. And if
these daring adventurers were often unscrupulous, at all events
they and their quick-witted Irish wives produced a most uncommon
offspring.
We do not find that any hereditary turbulence showed itself in
disorders among the students. The early quarrels recorded are all
among the Fellows, and upon constitutional questions. The main
complaints against the boys were very harmless freaks, if we except
the constant apprehensions of the Deans concerning ale or tippling
houses in the city, which were assumed to be haunts of vice.
Stealing apples and cherries from the surrounding orchards was a
common offence, coupled, moreover, with climbing over the wall of
the College. It shows Ussher’s hand when we find this local feature
formally noted in the Caroline Statutes. A few of Bedell’s entries
are the following:--
_1628. July 16_ and _18._--At the examinations each forme was
censured, and it was agreed that none shall ascend out of one
forme to another, however absent, till he be examined.
_August 18._--Examination for Scholars--Apposers, Mr. Thomas and
Mr. Fitzgerald.
_August 21._--The Bachelors to be hearers of the Hebrew Lecture,
unless they that were able to proceed in that tongue by their
private industry, and those are to help in the collation of the
MSS. of the New Testament in Greek. Twelve Testaments were given
by Sir William Ussher for the Irish.
_August 24._--A meeting about the accounts. Warning given of town
haunting and swearing. The Deans requested to appoint secret
monitors for them.
_September 13._--The Dean may punish for going in cloaks by the
consent of the Provost and greater part. Mr. Temple’s letters to
the Provost and Fellows answered--his cause of absence to study
in Oxford not _gravis_ much less _gravissima_.
_September 22._--The course for banishing boys, not students, by
occasion of Mr. Lowther’s boy striking Johnson consented to, viz.
that fire and water, bread and beer and meat be denied them by
the butler and cook, under pain of 12d. _toties quoties_.
_September 23._--Deane and Wilson mulcted a month’s Commons for
their insolent behaviour, assaulting and striking the butler,
which was presently changed into sitting at the lower end of the
Scholars’ table for a month, and subjecting them to the rod.
The order for placing the Fellow Commoners by themselves in the
Chapel for having more room begins. Service books bought and
bound for the natives.
_October._--Election of Burgesses for Parliament. The Provost
and Mr. Donellan, upon better advice, the Provost resigning, Mr.
Fitzgerald was chosen.
_December 28._--The Lord Primate dined in the College at the
Hall, and the same Dr. James Ware presented the petition for
renewing the lands of Kilmacrenny. Jo. Wittar admonished for
playing at cards.
_January 28._--Tho. Walworth refused to read Chapter, and
enjoined to make a confession of his fault upon his knees in the
Hall--which he disacknowledging--he had deserved expulsion.
_July 23, 1629._--Sir Walworth said to have sold his study to
haunt the town. Somers, Deane, and Elliott appointed to sit bare
for going out of the Hall before grace, and not performing it,
made to stand by the pulpit.
_April 2._--The proclamation against Priests and Jesuits came
forth.
_April 5._--Easter day, at which the forms were used for
conveniency about the Communion Table.
_April 11._--Mr. Travers, for omitting his Common place the
second time appointed, punished 13s. Mr. Tho. for omitting
prayers reading, 5s.
_May 12._--The Sophisters proposed supper to the Bachelors:
prevented by sending for them and forbidding them to attempt it.
_July 11._--The Fellow Commoners complain of Mr. Price for
forbidding them to play at bowls in the Orchard; they were
blamed, and it was shown that by Statute they could not play
there.
_July 29._--Six natives, Dominus Kerdiffe, Ds. Conway, Ds. Baker,
Ds. Davis, Ds. Kerdiffe, jun., and Burton, admonished for being
often absent from Irish Prayers.
_August 19._--The natives to lose their weekly allowance if they
are absent from prayers on the Lord’s Day.
_August 29._--Sir Springham said to keep a hawk. Rawley, for
drunkenness and knocking Strank’s head against the seat of the
Chapel, to have no further maintenance from the house.
Booth, for taking a pig of Sir Samuel Smith’s, and that openly
in the day time before many, and causing it to be dressed in
town, inviting Mr. Rollon and Sir Conway (who knew not of it) was
condemned to be whipped openly in the Hall, and to pay for the
pig.
_August 6._--Communion. Sermon upon Psalm 71. 16. The Articles of
the Church of Ireland read.[31]
The entries of the 29th August (1629) are peculiarly interesting,
but have hitherto not been understood in their local connection.
There is an entry in Mr. Gilbert’s _Assembly Roll_ (ii., p. 82)
awarding a citizen £8 for a goshawk he had purchased for the city,
which hawk had died. This is a very large sum--perhaps equal to
£70 now, and out of all proportion to the salaries and the prices
of necessaries in the College. To keep a hawk was, therefore,
somewhat like keeping an expensive hunter now, and a proof of great
extravagance. As regards the story of the pig, it was nothing more
than a comic carrying out of an order (above, p. 13) frequently
issued by the Corporation, whom Booth took at their word. It seems,
therefore, that either such proclamations were a sham, or that
they only referred to the right of citizens to interfere with the
roving swine.
[Illustration: THE SOUTH BACK OF THE ELIZABETHAN COLLEGE.]
The courts seem to have been in grass, as there is an early item
for mowing, and 1s. 4d. for an old scythe. A vegetable garden was
kept for the use of the College on the site of the present Botany
Bay Square, and the further ground belonging to the precincts is
called a firr park, which seems to mean a field of furze, much
used for fuel in those days. There was neither room nor permission
for the games and sports so vital to modern College life. The
old and strict notion of a College life, still preserved in some
Roman Catholic Colleges abroad, excluded all recreation as waste
of time. The Caroline Statutes formally forbid playing or even
loitering in the courts or gardens of the College. Nor was this
any isolated severity. In the detailed _horarium_ laid down for
a proposed College at Ripon, to be founded by James I.’s Queen
(Anne of Denmark) at this very time, every half-hour in the day
is fully occupied with study, lectures, or prayers.[32] There was
considerable license, however, allowed at Christmas, and it was
perhaps from the old Monastery of All Hallowes that the fashion
was transmitted of acting plays at that season in the College. The
performance seems to have been undertaken by the several years or
classes. In 1630 it was ordered that the play should be acted,
but not in the College. The Lord Deputy constrained the unwilling
Provost Ussher to permit it. Even in the Caroline Statutes,
remains of this Christmas license appear in the permission to play
cards--at other times strictly forbidden--in the Hall on that day.
Every 17th March (S. Patrick’s Day), the town population came in
crowds from the city to S. Patrick’s well at the southern limit of
the College (now Nassau Street, opposite Dawson Street), there to
test the miraculous powers of that holy well, which at that moment
of the year worked strange cures of diseases. We can imagine the
furze bushes or trees around this well all hung with tattered
rags, as may still be seen at wells of similar pretensions in the
wild parts of Ireland. If the enclosed S. Stephen’s Green was
still remarkable in the last century “for the incredible number of
snipes” that frequented it, so the College Park must have contained
them in abundance. But it was reserved for our grandfathers to
boast that they had shot a snipe in the College precincts.[33]
The intellectual condition of the average 16th century student is
even harder to ascertain, and I have sought in vain for adequate
materials. It does, indeed, appear that the Irish New Testament
and Prayer Book had been printed. Sir H. Sidney’s _Irish Articles
of Religion_ were brought out in 1566. John Ussher had promoted
Kearney’s _Irish Alphabet and Catechism_, produced in Dublin from
type supplied by the Queen in 1571.[34] William Ussher had produced
the New Testament in Francke’s printing, 1602. This printer is
probably the man mentioned as the “King’s printer” in 1615 (for
proclamations?). But though there is extant a proposed arrangement
with the very printer of one of these books (Kearney) to live and
work in the College,[35] there is no trace of his having done any
real service. Even the Statutes were in MS., copied out by the
hand of the Provost or Vice-Provost. The annals of Dublin show, I
believe, none but isolated printing till about 1627;[36] it was in
1641, both in Kilkenny and Waterford, as well as in Dublin, that
printing began to be used for disseminating political views. But
the earliest students must have found it very difficult to obtain
books, and there is no trace that any printing press started up
to meet this urgent want. I am now speaking only of text-books
for students, by which I mean such small and handy editions as
the Latin _Isagoge_ of Porphyry, printed at Paris in 1535, of
which copies are often found in Dublin, as the work was diligently
taught in the 17th century course. Dudley Loftus’ _Logic_ and
_Introduction_, printed in 1657 (Dublin), seem to me the earliest
books likely to have been used as text-books in Trinity College.
Strange to say, there is no copy of either in our College Library.
But the official teaching was strictly oral, and the students were
merely required to write out in theses or reproduce in disputations
what their tutors had told them. The College course, as laid down
by Laud (or Ussher?) in the Caroline Statutes, is plainly not a
course in books, but in subjects. Not a single text-book, unless
it be the _Isagoge_ of Porphyry, is specified, and this rather for
the lecturer than the students. Whatever practical relaxations
the course then laid down may have undergone, it was chiefly in
the post-graduate studies; for the officers of the College had no
power to alter or emend the programme of Laud till the year 1760,
when a special King’s Letter gave them authority to do so. This
accounts for the great quantity of lecturing which went on, each
tutor giving three hours every day, not to speak of the efforts
of the College Schoolmaster, who undertook those that were raw
in Latin and Greek. Archbishop Loftus, indeed, in his parting
address to the College (Armagh Library MS.), exhorts the new
Provost (Travers)--“See that the younger sort be well catechised,
and that you prescribe to the rest a catalogue of approved books
to be read by them as foundations of learning, both human and
divine.” But this alludes to post-graduate studies, for which the
Library was then established,[37] and not to the daily studies
of the undergraduates. Logic was the chief subject, the system
of Ramus being brought into fashion by the Cambridge Puritans,
and especially by Provost Temple, who had written a book on the
subject. Chappel was also a famous Ramist logician. Very little
mathematics was taught, but, on the other hand, Hebrew was regarded
as of equal importance with Greek; and in every subject we find the
student’s knowledge tested, not by reproduction of his reading, but
by disputations, which showed that he had so far grasped a subject
that he could attack an adversary or defend himself when attacked.
[Illustration: (Decorative chapter ending)]
FOOTNOTES:
[1] The writer of the first four chapters here acknowledges the
generous help received from J. R. Garstin, Esq., B.D., and the
Rev. William Reynell, B.D., both in supplying him with facts and
in correcting his proofs. This portion of the book was undertaken
by him suddenly, in default of a specialist to perform it. Hence
the large number of extracts inserted, in which the facts must rest
upon the authority of the authors quoted, as there was no time
to verify them. Of the three extant histories of the University,
those of Taylor and of Dr. Stubbs are very valuable in citing many
original documents, the former chiefly Parliamentary, the latter
from the archives of the College. Heron’s work was written for a
special purpose, which he pleads throughout, after the manner of
his profession.
[2] “That before the Reformation it [the Royal College of Dublin]
was common to all the natives of this country, ... and the ablest
scholars of the nation preferred to be professors and teachers
therein, without any distinction of orders, congregations, or
politic bodies other than that of true merit,” etc. _Cf._ _Dublin
Magazine_ for August, 1762. This golden age of Irish University
education may well be relegated to the other golden ages of
mythology.
[3] I quote the text (which has lately been printed), of which I
owe my knowledge to the kindness of Mrs. Reeves, who lent me the
late Bishop of Down’s MS. copy:--“Nolui enim Magnatum placitis me
accomodare qui summo conatu, immo cæco impetu et consutis dolis,
operam dederunt ut prope Civitatem Lymericensem vel Armachanam
fundaretur, quasi piaculum non fuisset periculis belli incendii
turbacionis et ruinæ exponere Academiam noviter fundatam, ... nulla
alia forsan ratione quam uberioris proprii quæstus gratia. Quem et
objeci viro eorundem præcipuo prænobili arteque militari conspicuo
fascibusque tunc potito, non obstante quod nimis subitaneæ iræ
impetu sæpius se monstraverat pronum ad furorem et verbera; is
enim non semel se rapi sinebat æstuantis animi violentia in
proclivitatem vim hujuscemodi inferendi aliis; notum enim est
... quam strenuum et fortem virum, sed tunc podagra laborantem
pedibusque captum percussit ipse iræ infirmitate perculsus, etc.
Non defui igitur mihi vel Academiæ obstando tanto viro,” etc. In
other words, he claims to have incurred great danger of being
thrashed by Perrott for opposing him! And he retorts the very
charge brought against himself, of having pecuniary interests in
the background.
[4] I cite from Mr. Wright’s citation of Thomas Smith’s life of
James Ussher, _Ussher Memorials_, p. 44.
[5] _Cf._ E. P. Shirley’s _Original Letters, &c._, London, 1851,
for these and other details.
[6] _Cf._ Gilbert, _op. cit._ vol. ii., for Usshers, pp. 17, 22,
65, etc.; for Challoners, pp. 45, 64, 88, 259, etc.
[7] _Op. cit._ pp. 64, 88.
[8] He was uncle to the famous James Ussher, now commonly known as
Archbishop Ussher. Henry Ussher, however, was also Archbishop of
Armagh. He was educated both at Cambridge and at Oxford, as well as
abroad.
[9] On application to Cambridge, I am informed, by the kindness
of the Registrar and of Mr. W. A. Wright of Trinity College, that
Luke Challoner (spelt Chalenor) matriculated as a pensioner October
13, 1582, took B.A. degree in 1585, and M.A. in 1589. He was never
a Fellow, or even a Scholar, of Trinity College, Cambridge, and
obtained his D.D. at one of the earliest Commencements in Dublin,
probably in 1600/1.
[10] Stubbs’ _History of the University of Dublin_, Appendix
iii., p. 354. None of the histories note that there were foreign
Colleges founded by Irish priests for the Irish at this very time
in Salamanca (opened 1592), Lisbon (1593), Douai (1594). Thus
there was an active policy to be counteracted by Elizabeth, and
these proposed foundations were probably set before her by Henry
Ussher as a pressing danger. Some account of the Constitution of
the Salamanca seminary is given in Hogan’s _Hibernia Ignatiana_,
Appendix, p. 238. The students were to be exclusively of Irish
parentage.
[11] Who these well-disposed persons were is beyond doubt. The
Queen mentions Ussher in the Warrant; the College mentions
Challoner on his tomb--
“Conditur hoc tumulo Chaloneri triste cadaver
Cujus ope et precibus conditur ista domus.”
James Ussher, in recommending a subsequent Provost (Robert Ussher),
says--“He is the son of that father at whose instance, charge, and
trust the Charter of the first foundation was obtained from Queen
Elizabeth” (_Works_, i., 103). On the epitaph of Provost Seele we
read--
“Tecta Chalonerus pia condidit; obruta Seelus
Instauravit.”
In the MS. at Armagh, written in praise of Loftus, and reporting
his speeches, we have the following (p. 228):--“Among many prudent
inducements suitable to polity and reason which moved the Queen to
establish this University and College at All Hallowes, the humble
peticion of Henry Ussher, Archdeacon of Dublin, in the name of
the Citty of Dublin, faithfully and most zealously solicited by
Dr. Luke Challoner, and as powerfully recommended and promoted
by Adam Loftus, etc., was not held the least of efficacye as to
extrinsicall impressions with the Queen in that behalf.” Here,
then, _in a panegyric of Loftus_, Archbishop and Chancellor, his
name is postponed to those of the two local men and the City
of Dublin. This fact speaks for itself. I quote these various
documents to correct the current impression that Loftus was the
real founder.
[12] Gilbert: _Ancient Records of Dublin_, ii., p. 240
[13] The _Book of Benefactions_ (first printed in the College
Calendar of 1858) gives the date of the actual grant as July 21, in
the 34th year of Elizabeth.
[14] Stubbs, _op. cit._ pp. 10, 11.
[15] From a _Book of Common Prayer_ printed in Dublin, 1721, where
it appears among the “Prayers for the use of Trinity College,
near Dublin.” “What authority there was for these prayers has not
been ascertained. They certainly were not an integral portion
of the book as adopted by the Irish Convocation, and in the
Dublin-printed edition of 1700 they first appear interpolated, in
the T.C.D. Library copy, between two of the Acts of Parliament
which were then printed in some issues of the Church of Ireland
Prayer-book.”--_J.R.G._ The prayer printed at the beginning of
Provost Ashe’s _secular sermon_, of which an illustration is given
on p. 10, was possibly the model: it was printed in 1693/4.
[16] The old Dublin seal has men-at-arms shooting with cross-bows
from the tops of the towers, which are five stories high. The cause
of the change is, I believe, known, though I have not learned it.
[17] It occurs to me, as a solution of this difficulty, that in
1612 Temple and his Fellows were occupied in preparing a Charter
and Statutes for the University, as distinguished from the College.
This scheme, when almost complete, was adjourned _sine die_. But
if the original seal contained any allusion to Trinity College as
an University, which is very possible, then this seal, dated 1612,
is the first seal of the College as such, and there may have been
another seal prepared for the University, which disappeared with
the failure of the scheme.
[18] Description of Dublin (1610).
[19] _Cf._ Gilbert’s _Ancient Records_, ii., 16, 63, 99, 142, 377,
and on Stanihurst, p. 541.
[20] The other constant cause of fire mentioned is the keeping of
ricks of furze and of faggots close to the houses.
[21] “It is agreed that no person or persons frome hensforthe shall
place any dounge on the pavement betwyxt the Dames Gate and the
Hoggen Greane; and that they shall suffer no dounge to remayne
upon the saide pavement against ther houses or gardinges in the
said streete above xxiv owres, and that they shall make clean
before their gardinges of all ramaylie, dounge, or outher fylthe
with all convenyent speade; and to place the same and all outher
dounge that shalbe caryed to the saide greane, in the greate hole
by Allhallowes, and not elsewheare upon the same greane, upon payne
of vis viiid, halfe to the spier and finder, and thother halfe to
the cyttie worckes.”--Gilbert, ii., p. 66.
[22] On the map of 1610, facsimiled on p. 7 (from Mr. Gilbert),
the Hospital and the Bridewell, on the west and north of the
College respectively, are interchanged in names or in numbers. The
descriptions in the records of each, _op. cit._ pp. 390, 420, will
prove this mistake in the map.
[23] The amount is usually stated at £1,800. Dr. Stubbs reduces it
to £700. Even so, it was a very large sum. Dr. Stubbs also proves
that there were some books in the College Library before 1600, _op.
cit._ p. 170.
[24] Fitz-Simons’ _Life and Letters_, translated and edited by E.
Hogan, S.J., p. 56. “Non sine Collegiatorum ingenti fremitu, qui
hactenus nullum alicujus æstimationis ad se pellicere potuerunt,”
evidently refers to Roman Catholic boys, if we are to defend the
learned Jesuit’s statement as one of fact.
[25] Thus a window in the College Chapel, set up as a memorial of
Bishop Berkeley, calls him a _Fellow of this University_. I need
not point out how this blunder has been exalted into an official
title by the Examining Body called the Royal University of Ireland,
which has no Professors for its University, and no College for its
Fellows.
[26] _Cf._ _op. cit._ p. 395. The decision of the Visitors had been
for the latter, but reversed by the Chancellor (Archbishop Abbot),
whose letter shows that he had not apprehended the important
distinction between Statute and Charter; the Statutes, made by the
College, being powerless to abrogate what the Charter had ordained.
[27] It is now known as Rosslea Manor, in Fermanagh, and pays the
College about £2,000 a-year.
[28] Robert Ussher was the only Irish Provost who adopted the same
policy. But he was clearly a sentimental person, as appears from
his cousin the Primate’s judgment, that he was quite too soft to
manage the College, and also from the Latin letter to the Primate
still extant (_Ussher Memorials_, p. 275), a very florid and
tasteless piece of rhetoric.
[29] It also existed at Oxford. Wesley preached in this way as a
layman.--_J. R. G._
[30] Here is a specimen of Provost Temple’s estimates:--“Allowed
to each Scholar at dinner ¾d., at supper 1d. This allowance will
be to each Scholar, out of the kitchen, 1s. 2½d. per week, or
£2 13s. 1d. per annum. After this rate, there being seventeen and
a-half messes of Scholars, and for each mess 3d. at dinner, and
4d. at supper, the allowance out of the kitchen, made to seventy
Scholars, will amount to £185 15s. per annum. The allowance to a
Scholar out of the buttery. To each Scholar allowed in bread, at
dinner ½d., and at supper a ½d., and for his weekly sizings
4d., it cometh to 11d. per week; To each Scholar, in beer, ½d.
per diem is per week, 3½d. At this rate a Scholar’s allowance,
out of the buttery, in bread and beer is 1s. 2½d. per week, or
£3 2s. 10d. per annum. Now the whole allowance of a Scholar, both
out of the kitchen and buttery, being 2s. 2¼d. per week, and £5
15s. 11d. per annum, will amount for seventy Scholars, to £405 3s.
4d.
“The allowance of a Fellow out of the kitchen, 1½d. per each
meal, or 3d. per diem, will come to 1s. 9d. per week or £4 11s. per
annum: according to this rate, there being four messes of Fellows,
and for each mess, both dinner and supper, 6d., the allowance of
the Fellows out of the kitchen will be £72 16s. per annum. The
allowance of a Fellow out of the buttery at 1d. each for bread,
and 1d. for beer, and for his weekly sizings 1½d., will be 1s.
3½d. each, and per annum £3 7s. 2d.: after this the allowances
of the sixteen Fellows out of the buttery in bread, beer, and
sizings, is £53 14s. 8d. per annum.”--_Op. cit._ p. 40. The details
sorely need explanation.
[31] Stubbs, pp. 58, 59.
[32] _Cf._ this very curious document in _Desiderata Curiosa_.
[33] “There is to be seen here (S. Stephen’s Green), during the
winter, an incredible number of snipes, invited by the swampiness
of the Green during that season, and to avoid their enemies the
sportsmen: this is an agreeable and most uncommon circumstance
not to be met with, perhaps, in any other great city in the
world.”--Harris’s _History of Dublin_ (1766), p. 481, note.
[34] _Cf._ _Ussher Memorials_, pp. 122, 128.
[35] Stubbs, p. 22.
[36] There seem to have been a good many learned books by J.
Ussher, Sir James Ware, James Barry, and Sir C. Sibthorp printed in
Dublin between 1626 and 1636. Then there seems to be a pause till
about 1650, when a continuous series of Irish prints begins.
[37] The College Library, which forms the subject of another
chapter in this book, was intended solely for graduates, and we
hear that when the victors of Kinsale voted a large part of their
prize-money for books, or when the College voted money for the same
purpose, learned men like Ussher and Challoner were forthwith sent
to England to purchase them.
[Illustration: (Decorative chapter heading)]