THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY UP TO 1758.
_Nec conclusisti me in manibus inimici: statuisti in loco spatioso
pedes meos_.--PS. XXX. 9.
The great expansion of the College about the time of its first
Centenary seems to have been rather the effect of circumstances
than of a strong and able government. The Provosts were perpetually
being promoted to Bishoprics, and were in any case not very
remarkable men. Nevertheless, the Centenary was celebrated with
great pomp, and in a manner widely different from that which is
now in fashion at such feasts. Almost the whole day was occupied
with various orations in praise of founders or of the studies
of the place. We do not hear that any visitors but the local
grandees of Dublin attended, nor is there any detail concerning the
entertainment of the body, after the weariness inflicted upon the
mind, of the audience. There may possibly be some details still
concealed in the College Register, the publication of which among
our historical records is earnestly to be desired. Dr. Stubbs (pp.
136-8) prints the following:--
In the morning there were the customary prayers in the Chapel and
a sermon.
At 2 p.m., after a musical instrumental performance, an oration
was made by Peter Browne, F.T.C., containing a panegyric in
honour of Queen Elizabeth: “Deus nobis hæc otia fecit.” Dominus
Maude, Fellow Commoner, followed with a Carmen Seculare in Latin
hexameters--
“Aspice venturo lætentur ut omnia seclo
... sequitur ramis insignis olivæ.”
Then Benjamin Pratt, F.T.C., followed with praise of King James
the First: “Munificentissimi Academiæ auctoris;” “pariter pietate
vel armis egregii.”
George Carr, F.T.C., commemorated the Chancellors of the
University during the preceding century--
“Nec nos iterum meminisse pigebit Elissæ.”
Sir Richard Gethinge, Bart., followed with an English poem in
memory of the illustrious founder of the College.
Robert Mossom, F.T.C., delivered a Latin oration in praise of
Charles the First and Charles the Second--
“Heu pietas, heu prisca fides ...
... Amavit nos quoque Daphnis.”
Then followed a recitation of some pastoral verses by Dr. Tighe
and Dr. Denny, Fellow Commoners, bearing upon the revival of the
University by William and Mary--
“Jam fides et pax, et honor pudorque
Priscus, et neglecta redire Virtus
Audet.”
A thanksgiving ode was then sung, accompanied by instrumental
music.
A grateful commemoration of the benefits which the City of Dublin
had conferred upon the University, by Richard Baldwin, F.T.C.--
“Laudabunt alii claram Rhodon aut Mitylenen.”
Verses commemorating the hospitality shown to the members of the
University when dispersed, by the sister Universities of Oxford
and Cambridge, were recited by Benjamin Hawkshaw, B.A., William
Tisdall, B.A., Jeremiah Harrison, B.A.--
“ ... Quales decet esse Sorores.”
Then there was a Latin debate on the subject, “Whether the
Sciences and Arts are more indebted to the Ancients or the
Moderns.”
For the Ancients--Nicholas Foster, B.A.
For the Moderns--Robert Cashin, B.A.
Then followed a “Carmen seculare lyricum,” recited by Anthony
Dopping, son of the Bishop of Meath--
“Alterum in lustrum meliusque semper
... Proroget ævum.”
Concerning the increase of University studies, in a humorous
speech by Thomas Leigh, B.A.
Eugene Lloyd, Proctor of the University, closed the Acts.
A skilled band of musicians followed the procession as they left
the building.
To this Dunton, writing from Dublin in 1699, while the memory of it
was still fresh, adds some curious details--
Leaving Dr. Phœnix’s house, our next visit was to the College of
Dublin, where several worthy gentlemen (both Fellows and others)
had been great benefactors to my auction. When we came to the
College, we went first to my friend Mr. Young’s chamber; but he
not being at home we went to see the Library, which is over the
Scholars’ lodgings, the length of one of the quadrangles, and
contains a great many choice books of great value, particularly
one, the largest I ever saw for breadth; it was an “Herbal,”
containing the lively portraitures of all sorts of trees, plants,
herbs, and flowers. By this “Herbal” lay a small book, containing
about sixty pages in a sheet, to make it look like “the Giant and
the Dwarf.” There also (since I have mentioned a giant) we saw
lying on a table the thigh-bone of a giant, or at least of some
monstrous overgrown man, for the thigh-bone was as long as my
leg and thigh; which is kept there as a convincing demonstration
of the vast bigness which some human bodies have in former
times arrived to. We were next showed by Mr. Griffith, a Master
of Arts (for he it was that showed us these curiosities), the
skin of one Ridley, a notorious Tory, which had been long ago
executed; he had been begged for an anatomy, and, being flayed,
his skin was tanned, and stuffed with straw. In this passive
state he was assaulted with some mice and rats, not sneakingly
behind his back, but boldly before his face, which they so much
further mortified, even after death, as to eat it up; which loss
has since been supplied by tanning the face of one Geoghagan, a
Popish Priest, executed about six years ago for stealing; which
said face is put in the place of Ridley’s.
At the east end of this Library, on the right hand, is a chamber
called “The Countess of Bath’s Library,” filled with many
handsome folios, and other books, in Dutch binding, gilt, with
the Earl’s Arms impressed upon them; for he had been some time of
this house.
On the left hand, opposite to this room, is another chamber,
in which I saw a great many manuscripts, medals, and other
curiosities. At the west end of the Library there is a division
made by a kind of wooden lattice-work, containing about thirty
paces, full of choice and curious books, which was the Library
of that great man, Archbishop Ussher, Primate of Armagh, whose
learning and exemplary piety has justly made him the ornament,
not only of that College (of which he was the first scholar that
ever was entered in it, and the first who took degrees), but of
the whole Hibernian nation.
At the upper end of this part of the Library hangs at full length
the picture of Dr. Chaloner,[66] who was the first Provost of
the College, and a person eminent for learning and virtue. His
picture is likewise at the entrance into the Library, and his
body lies in a stately tomb made of alabaster. At the west
end of the Chapel, near Dr. Chaloner’s picture (if I do not
mistake), hangs a new skeleton of a man, made up and given by
Dr. Gwither, a physician of careful and happy practice, of great
integrity, learning, and sound judgment, as may be seen by those
treatises of his that are inserted in some late “Philosophical
Transactions.”
Thus, Madam, have I given you a brief account of the Library,
which at present is but an ordinary pile of building, and cannot
be distinguished on the outside; but I hear they design the
building of a new Library, and, I am told, the House of Commons
in Ireland have voted £3,000 towards carrying it on.[67]
After having seen the Library, we went to visit Mr. Minshull,
whose father I knew in Chester. Mr. Minshull has been student in
the College for some time, and is a very sober, ingenious youth,
and I do think is descended from one of the most courteous men in
Europe; I mean Mr. John Minshull, bookseller in Chester.
After a short stay in this gentleman’s chamber, we were led by
one Theophilus, a good-natured sensible fellow, to see the new
house now building for the Provost, which, when finished, will be
very noble and magnificent.[68] After this, Theophilus showed us
the gardens belonging to the College, which were very pleasant
and entertaining. Here was a sun-dial, on which might be seen
what o’clock it was in most parts of the world.
This dial was placed upon the top of a stone representing a pile
of books; and not far from this was another sun-dial, set in box,
of very large compass, the gnomon of it being very near as big as
a barber’s pole.
Leaving this pleasant garden, we ascended several steps, which
brought us into a curious walk, where we had a prospect to the
west of the city and to the east of the sea and harbour; on the
south we could see the mountains of Wicklow, and on the north the
River Liffey, which runs by the side of the College.
Having now, and at other times, thoroughly surveyed the College,
I shall here attempt to give your Ladyship a very particular
account of it. It is called Trinity College, and is the sole
University of Ireland. It consists of three squares, the outward
being as large as both the inner, one of which, of modern
building, has not chambers on every side; the other has, on the
south side of which stands the Library, the whole length of the
square. I shall say nothing of the Library here (having already
said something of it), so I proceed to tell you, Madam, that
the Hall and Butteries run the same range with the Library, and
separate the two inner squares. It is an old building, as is also
the Regent-house, which from a gallery looks into the Chapel,
which has been of late years enlarged, being before too little
for the number of Scholars, which are now, with the Fellows,
&c., reckoned about 340. They have a garden for the Fellows, and
another for the Provost, both neatly kept, as also a bowling
green, and large parks for the students to walk and exercise
in. The Foundation consists of a Provost (who at present is the
Reverend Dr. George Brown, a gentleman bred in this house since a
youth, when he was first entered, and one in whom they all count
themselves very happy, for he is an excellent governor, and a
person of great piety, learning, and moderation), seven Senior
Fellows, of whom two are Doctors in Divinity, eight Juniors, to
which one is lately added, and seventy Scholars. Their Public
Commencements are at Shrovetide, and the first Tuesday after
the eighth of July. Their Chancellor is His Grace the Duke of
Ormonde. Since the death of the Right Reverend the Bishop of
Meath[69] they have had no Vice-Chancellor, only _pro re nata_.
The University was founded by Queen Elizabeth, and by her and
her successors largely endowed, and many munificent gifts and
legacies since made by several other well-disposed persons, all
whose names, together with their gifts, are read publicly in the
Chapel every Trinity Sunday, in the afternoon, as a grateful
acknowledgment to the memory of their benefactors; and on the 9th
of January, 1693 (which completed a century from the Foundation
of the College), they celebrated their first secular day, when
the Provost, Dr. Ashe, now Bishop of Clogher, preached, and made
a notable entertainment for the Lords Justices, Privy Council,
Lord Mayor and Aldermen of Dublin. The sermon preached by the
Provost was on the subject of the Foundation of the College,
and his text was Matthew xxvi. 13: “Verily I say unto you,
Wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached in the whole world,
there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for
a memorial of her;” which in this sermon the Provost applied
to Queen Elizabeth, the Foundress of the College. The sermon
was learned and ingenious, and afterwards printed by Mr. Ray,
and dedicated to the Lords Justices, who at that time were the
Lord Henry Capel, Sir Cyril Wiche, and William Duncomb, Esq. In
the afternoon there were several orations in Latin spoke by the
scholars in praise of Queen Elizabeth and the succeeding Princes,
and an ode made by Mr. Tate (the Poet Laureate), who was bred up
in this College. Part of the ode was as this following:--
Great Parent, hail! all hail to Thee;
Who has the last distress surviv’d,
To see this joyful day arriv’d;
The Muses’ second Jubilee.
Another century commencing,
No decay in thee can trace;
Time, with his own law dispensing,
Adds new charms to every grace,
That adorns thy youthful face.
After War’s alarms repeated,
And a circling age completed,
Numerous offspring thou dost raise,
Such as to Juverna’s praise
Shall Liffey make as proud a name
As that of Isis, or of Cam.
Awful Matron, take thy seat
To celebrate this festival;
The learn’d Assembly well to treat,
Blest Eliza’s days recall:
The wonders of her reign recount,
In strains that Phœbus may surmount.
Songs for Phœbus to repeat.
She ’twas that did at first inspire,
And tune the mute Hibernian lyre.
Succeeding Princes next recite;
With never-dying verse requite
Those favours they did shower.
’Tis this alone can do them right:
To save them from Oblivion’s night,
Is only in the Muse’s power.
But chiefly recommend to Fame
Maria, and great William’s name,
Whose Isle to him her Freedom owes
And surely no Hibernian Muse
Can her Restorer’s praise refuse,
While Boyne and Shannon flows.
After this ode had been sung by the principal gentlemen of the
Kingdom, there was a very diverting speech made in English by the
_Terræ Filius_.[70] The night concluded with illuminations, not
only in the College but in other places. Madam, this day being
to be observed but once in a hundred years, was the reason why I
troubled your ladyship with this account.
The sermon preached by Dr. St.-G. Ashe, who presently resigned
the Provostship, is still extant;[71] so is the musical ode, but
so scarce that there seems to be only one copy known, which the
researches for the present feast have unearthed. Some of the text,
which was composed by Nahum Tate, sometime (1672) a scholar of
the House, is given above from Dunton; the rest, which is printed
with the music, is of the same quality. It is chiefly a panegyric
of the reigning sovereigns, William and Mary, justified by their
recent indulgences to the College on account of its losses in the
Revolution. The music of the ode was composed by no less a person
than Henry Purcell, and would certainly have been repeated at
our Tercentenary had it been equal to his standard works. But it
is a curiously poor and perfunctory piece of work, whereas the
anthem then recently composed by Blow, “I beheld, and lo, a great
multitude,” still holds its place in our Chapel, and we gladly
reproduce it in the present festival. The title-page of the score
of the ode states that it was performed at Christ Church, whereas
the accounts of the celebration speak of it in the College--a
discrepancy which I cannot reconcile.
[Illustration: TITLE-PAGE OF THE CENTENARY SERMON.
A
SERMON
PREACHED IN
Trinity-College Chappell,
BEFORE THE
UNIVERSITY
OF
DUBLIN
JANUARY the 9th, 1693/4.
Being the First
SECULAR DAY
SINCE ITS
FOUNDATION
BY
Queen ELIZABETH
By _St. George Ashe_, D. D. Provost of _Trinity College, Dublin_.
Published by the Lords Justices Command.
Printed by _Joseph Ray_ on _College Green_, for _William Norman_
Bookseller in _Dames Street, Dublin_. 1694]
The series of Provosts to whom I have referred--Ashe (1692),
G. Browne (1695), Peter Browne (1699), Pratt (1710)--were all
promoted to Bishoprics, except the first Browne, who died of the
blow of a brickbat which struck him in a College row, and Pratt,
who was so insignificant that he could only obtain a Deanery as a
bribe for his resignation. Of these but one man has left a name,
Peter Browne[72] who composed a work on the “Procedure of the
Understanding,” evidently called forth by the recent Essay of
Locke, which had been introduced into the post-graduate course
by Ashe, and was then very popular. More celebrated, and more
interesting in this history, is the well-known Charge to the clergy
of Cork _on drinking healths_, in which the Bishop criticises “the
glorious, pious, and immortal memory” so dear to Irish Protestants,
and all such other toasts, as senseless, heathenish, and offensive.
It was always understood by his contemporaries that this Charge
showed the writer to be a Jacobite, and when we hear of the
long struggle of Provost Baldwin in subduing this spirit in the
College, we may fairly conjecture that during the reign of Browne
(1699-1710) it was allowed to grow without active interference.
It may indeed be thought that the declaration of loyalty to Queen
Anne, drawn up and signed by the Senate in 1708 (Stubbs, Appendix
xxxiv.), where Peter Browne’s name as Provost appears next to
the Vice-Chancellor’s, is evidence against this statement. The
declaration was caused by the speech of one Edward Forbes, who
was deprived of his degrees. I do not, however, think this merely
formal declaration can overcome the indirect, but serious evidence
of the Bishop’s personal Charge. There seem to be very few details
published concerning this remarkable man’s life. But a group of
famous young men were then passing through the College--Swift,
Berkeley, Delany; and King, an old scholar, was Archbishop of
Dublin. Berkeley was a Fellow, but we hear nothing of him in the
College politics of the day.[73]
The Foundation, therefore, had now become strong enough to live
and flourish in spite of, or in disregard of, its governors. There
is now, indeed, much insubordination mentioned. There seem to have
been many disturbances; the discipline of the place had doubtless
suffered through constantly changing Provosts, who were probably
counting upon promotion as soon as they were appointed. It was
therefore of no small importance to the ultimate success of Trinity
College, that for almost the whole of the eighteenth century it
was ruled by three men who were not promoted, and who devoted a
life’s interest to their duties. In the forty years preceding 1717
there had been (counting Moore) eight Provosts. In the eighty
years succeeding there were only three, and of these the first,
Baldwin, was probably the guiding spirit during the rule of his
weak predecessor, since 1710. The reasons which prevented Baldwin
going the way of all Provosts in those days, and passing on to a
Bishopric, have never been explained. His contemporaries were more
surprised at it (says Taylor) than we can be. And yet these reasons
are manifest enough, and disclosed to us in one of the most obvious
sources of information--the private correspondence of Primate
Boulter. That narrow and mischievous Whig politician, whose whole
correspondence is one vast network of jobbing in appointments,
came into power in 1724, and was for eighteen years the arbiter
of promotion, even of lay promotion, in Ireland. He was a man so
tenacious of a few ideas, that he keeps repeating them in the same
form with a persistency quite ludicrous, if it had not led to
very mischievous effects. He shows the same earnestness, whether
it be in importuning Bishops and Ministers for the promotion to a
Canonry of an obscure friend whose eyesight was so defective that
he was unfit for any post; or whether it be in urging his narrow
policy that all the high offices in Ireland should be filled by
Englishmen. “I hope, after what I have written in many letters
before, I need not again urge the necessity of the See not being
filled with a native of the country.”[74] And it is remarkable that
by _natives_ he only means the Anglo-Irish who had now attained
like Swift, some feeling for the rights of Ireland. Hence he shows
in many letters a marked dislike and suspicion of Trinity College,
which asserted its independence against him. This nettled his
officious and meddling temper considerably. “I cannot help saying
it would have been for the King’s service here if what has lately
been transacting in relation to the Professors had been concerted
with some of the English here, and not wholly with the natives, and
that after a secret manner; that the College might have thought
it their interest to have some dependence on the English” (i.,
227). Swift and Delany he accordingly disliked exceedingly, and so
persistent was his hostility to the Fellows, whom he calls a nest
of Jacobites, that he kept hindering their promotion to the Bench
during the whole of his unfortunate reign--for such we may call
it--over Ireland. Twice he touches upon the claims of Baldwin, whom
he confesses to be a strong Whig politician; he speaks of him with
coldness. He mentions with alarm the rumour that the Provost is to
be promoted, because he regards it impossible to find a safe man
to succeed him in the College. He clearly urges this difficulty
as a reason against his promotion. In another place--which has
been called a recommendation of Baldwin--he uses the following
words:--“Since my return the Bishop of Ossory is dead, and we [the
Lords Justices] have this day joined in a letter to your Grace,
mentioning the most proper persons here to be promoted to that
See. But I must beg leave to assure your Grace that I think it
is of great importance to the English interest that some worthy
person should be sent us from England to fill this vacancy. _If any
person here should be thought of_, I take the promotion most for
the King’s service here will be the making Dr. Baldwin Bishop, and
Dr. Gilbert Provost.” To this letter he receives a reply in ten
days, to which he answers in his next--“I am glad to hear of the
promotion of Dr. Edward Tenison to the See of Ossory, and thank
your Grace for the news.”
So successful, indeed, was this malefactor to the College in
impressing his policy upon English ministers, that while the years
1703-20 had seen six future Bishops and three future Deans obtain
Fellowships, from 1721 to 1763 but one Fellow was elected, Hugh
Hamilton, who obtained either honour. The non-promotion of Baldwin
was therefore a mere instance of Boulter’s policy, which prevailed
for half-a-century. But the accident of this injustice was of great
indirect benefit to the College. Instead of many Bishoprics, we
obtained our first permanent Provost.
The greatest luminary in the united Church of England and Ireland
at the time was the modest and pious George Berkeley. How does
Boulter accept his promotion, which he could not prevent? “As to a
successor to the Bishop of Cloyne, my Lord Lieutenant looks upon
it as settled in England that Dean Berkeley is to be made Bishop
here on the first occasion. I have therefore nothing more to say on
that point, but that _I wish the Dean’s promotion may answer the
expectation of his friends in England_!”
The next two Provosts were laymen and politicians, to whom
promotion did not bar the retention of the Collegiate office.
When the last of these three men passed away, the government
of the College again lapsed into the hands of a series of
Bishops-expectant, succeeding one another with monotonous
obscurity, till the advent of Bartholomew Lloyd in 1837 marks a new
epoch, almost in modern times. The eighteenth century, therefore,
stands out with great distinctness in this history. Almost all
the buildings of the College that give it dignity date from this
time. A new conception of what the country owed to the University,
and the University promised to fulfil, entered into men’s minds.
Grants of hundreds now became grants of thousands; salaries were
no longer pittances but prizes; the Fellows of the College became
dignitaries, not only on account of their position, but their
wealth; and the much-tried and long-struggling College at length
attained security, respect, and influence throughout the country.
The external appearance of the buildings changed as completely as
the spirit of the students. The College in 1770 was far more like
that of 1892 than that of 1700.
The first of these three Provosts, Baldwin, had probably more
influence on the history of the College than any one since the
founders. He was either a self-made man, or put forward by some
influence which disguised itself, so that many varying traditions
were current about his origin and youth. Taylor, who gives very
explicitly the authorities for his story, tells us (p. 249) that
Baldwin, being at school at Colne, in Lancashire, where he was
born in 1672, killed one of his schoolfellows with a blow, and so
fled to Ireland. On arriving in Dublin, being then twelve years of
age, he was found crying in the streets, when a person who kept
a coffee-house took pity on him, and brought him to his home,
where he remained for some time in the capacity of a waiter. A
few months after, Provost Huntingdon wanted a boy to take care of
his horse, when Richard Baldwin was recommended to him, and the
Provost had him instructed and entered at the College. Dr. Stubbs
ignores this story altogether, apparently on the ground of the (not
inconsistent) entry in Kilkenny College, that a boy of this name
matriculated from that place in April, 1685; the College admission
book, however, gives the date April, 1684; indeed, most of the
dates of his earlier promotions appear inaccurate, for though
he may have been a scholar in 1686, how can he have been a B.A.
in 1689, when he is known to have fled to England, and to have
supported himself by teaching in a school in Chester? Dr. Barrett’s
statements are evidently only hearsay. It is certain that grants
of money were given to him as a refugee in England in 1688. At all
events, he was made a Fellow in 1693, and a Senior Fellow in 1697,
from which time he either helped in governing, or governed the
College, till his death in 1758. He was Vice-Provost, under a lazy
absentee Provost, from 1710; he was appointed Provost in 1717.
Baldwin appears to have been in no sense a literary man, beyond
what was necessary for his examinations; on the other hand, he
was a strong and consistent Whig politician, a disciplinarian,
and evidently very keen about the architectural improvement of
the College. He accumulated a large fortune, which he left to
endow it, and which various claimants of his name from England
strove to appropriate for seventy years. In spite of all these
merits towards the College, he is not remembered with affection.
The extant portraits of him represent a stupid and expressionless
face, suggesting severity without natural dignity or good
breeding, though he became so great a figure in the College from
the mere duration of his influence. He did little to improve the
intellectual condition of the students. His temper was morose, and
his policy of crushing out not only political, but other opposition
among both students and Fellows made him for a long time very
unpopular. It is more than likely that his tyrannical conduct in
politics increased rather than diminished the Jacobite spirit in
the College, for the recalcitrant tendencies of youth were then as
they now are, and neither Queen Anne nor George I. was ever likely
to inspire the Irish students with any enthusiastic loyalty.
But Baldwin may fairly be called the architect of the College.
I do not include under that expression his vigilant supervision
and enhancement of the College rents--a very important duty,--or
his large bequests to the society, which have made the office
of Provost one of wealth as well as of dignity. His claim to be
remembered by the Irish public rests upon more obvious grounds.
The undertaking of the present Library building coincides with his
advent to power. It was actually commenced when, as Vice-Provost,
he ruled for the easy-going Pratt. It was finished in the early
and stormy years of his Provostship; and when we consider that of
all the buildings which give Dublin the air and style of a capital
not one then existed, we may better understand the largeness and
boldness of the plan. The Royal Hospital at Kilmainham had indeed
been recently erected, as the arms of the second Duke of Ormonde
over the main door testify. This building, which a vague and
probably false tradition in Dublin attributes to Wren, must have
produced no small impression by its splendour. It was planned
exactly as a college, with the hall and chapel _in directum_,
forming one side of a quadrangle, and surmounted by a belfry. Such
is the plan of many colleges at Oxford. And such was still the
plan of Chapel and Hall in Trinity College when the eighteenth
century opened, and when larger ideas suggested themselves with
the increase of wealth and the disappearance of danger from war
or tumult. Building had never ceased in the College since the Act
of Settlement secured the great College estates in the North and
West. Seele had worked hard to restore and enlarge the buildings,
dilapidated through age and poverty; Marsh and Huntingdon had built
a new Chapel and Hall on the site of the present Campanile, but
excessively plain and ugly; even Pratt proposed the building of
a new belfry over the Hall, a plan which was carried out thirty
years after his resignation. The Chapel is compared by a visitor
to a Welsh church. The old tower at the north side of the College,
which had lasted from the days of All Hallowes’ Abbey, was restored
by Seele, who evidently strove to save this relic of the past. The
Front Square was being rebuilt, when the dangerous interlude of
James II.’s occupation beggared the College for a moment, after
which the houses of the Library Square, which still stand there,
were taken in hand. Perfectly plain they were, but solid, and have
stood the wear and tear of nearly 200 years, not to speak of the
improving fury of occasional innovators, who, even in our day, have
threatened them with destruction.[75] They have been disfigured,
as the Royal Hospital has been, with ugly grey plaster. If the
original red bricks were uncovered, and a tile roof set upon them,
the public would presently find out that they were picturesque. At
all events, the west side, which was taken down in this century,
was a better and more suitable building than those erected (“Botany
Bay”) by way of compensation.
The bold undertaking of building the present great Library, without
possessing books enough to fill more than a corner of it, must have
been Baldwin’s idea. It was no doubt he who hit upon the idea of
soliciting the Irish Parliament for grants, although the College
was rapidly increasing in wealth. £15,000 was obtained in this way
between 1712 and 1724, when the building was finished. The total
cost is said to have been only £17,000! Dr. Stubbs deserves the
credit of discovering the name of the architect, which was long
forgotten, and which is not mentioned, I believe, in the College
Register. He was Mr. Thomas Burgh, in charge of the fortifications
of King William III. If the Royal Barracks, lately abandoned, were
also his work, they offer a strange contrast to his plan for the
Library. What his old Custom House in Essex Street was like I do
not know.[76] Neither do I know upon what authority Dr. Stubbs
adds another detail, that the two small staircases inside the west
door, which lead to the gallery, were transferred from the older
library, where Bishop Jones had set them up in 1651. If so, these
staircases are the oldest piece of woodwork in the College, unless
it be the pulpit used for grace in the present Dining Hall, which
bears evidences of being equally old. The further history of this
Library, which was rapidly enriched by many valuable bequests,
forms the subject of another chapter.
The next improvement seems to have been the laying out and
planting of the College Park, beyond a closed quadrangle behind
the present Library Square, in which the students had their
recreations. The walled-in court was probably thought sufficient,
and most assuredly, until the whole College Park was enclosed,
the unfortunate students would by no means have been allowed to
wander through it. The lodge, built in 1722 for a porter, at
the north-east end, seems to imply that the fencing was then in
process.[77]
These improvements were followed rapidly by the building of a new
Dining Hall, commenced in 1740. A bequest of £1,000 seems to have
been the only help required, and in 1745 it was even adorned with
some of the portraits which still survive. But in 1758 this Hall
was so unsafe that it was taken down, and after dismissing the
College bricklayer for his work,[78] the present Hall was set up on
the same site, and apparently without change of plan. It must be
added, in extenuation of the bricklayer’s conduct, that the ground
in that part of the College affords very insecure foundations, as
we know from recent experiences. The present building has many
great cracks in it, and the new rooms just added have had their
foundations sunk to a great depth.[79] What is, however, more
interesting as history, is to note that the style of this Hall, not
finished till after 1760, is rather the plain and panelled building
of the preceding generation. The Theatre (Examination Hall) is
decorated in a very different, but not, perhaps, a better style.
[Illustration: THE OLD CLOCK TOWER.]
While this work was going on, bequests of £1,000 were left to
build an ornamental front and tower at the west end of the old
Hall; and the well-known architect, Cassels, did so, close to,
but a little west of, the site of the present belfry, in 1745.
In this the present great bell, cast at Gloucester in 1742, was
hung.[80] The aspect of the court, therefore, upon entering the
gate, was that of a small square, closed towards the east with a
building much nearer than the present belfry. The centre of this
east range had the ornamental front and belfry of Cassels’ design,
which, according to the extant plan, must always have been ugly,
and looks very top-heavy.[81] The north and south sides of this
Front Square (built 1685) were of inferior character; while the
small quadrangle beyond, on the south side, including the Provost’s
lodging, was still the original structure of Queen Elizabeth’s
time. The bell tower was taken down as unsafe, and the Hall
removed, at the close of the century. We see, therefore, that in
this great building period there were many serious mistakes made.
There was so much work of the kind going on all through the city,
that there must have been a scarcity of competent artisans, and
much hurry. The buildings which remain are indeed solid and well
finished; but when we attribute these characteristics to all the
Dublin buildings of that date, we forget that their bad work has
long since perished--what was done well and carefully is all that
has remained. While Cassels was building his unsound tower, he
erected another pretty building according to a bequest of Bishop
Stearne--the Printing-House, from which issued in 1741 an edition
of seven dialogues of Plato, in a good though much-contracted
type (which is still preserved in the office), and on good paper,
but disfigured by a portentous list of errata. The book is now
rare, and in request among bibliographers. A few years later, neat
editions of Latin Classics issued from the same press.
This architectural activity, based upon liberal but insufficient
bequests, somewhat excuses the systematic begging petitions
with which the College approached the Irish Parliament for the
rebuilding of the Front Square, Theatre, and Chapel, petitions
which that Parliament seemed never tired of granting, and yet
never able to satisfy. If the taste for fine building and the
Parliament in College Green had not both expired with the end of
the century, Trinity College would now be the most splendidly
housed College in the world. Even as it is, intelligent visitors
cannot but be struck with the massive and dignified character of
its buildings. Queen Anne and George I. had already granted (in
three sums) £15,000 for the Library. George II. granted £45,000 for
the present Front Square and Examination Hall. George III., besides
the relief of £70 yearly in pavement-tax, granted (in 1787) £3,000,
in response to a petition for £12,000. So that, in all, the country
granted the College at least £60,000 for building during the
eighteenth century.[82] It is set forth in these various petitions
that the beauty of the metropolis is one of the objects to be
attained, as well as the health of the students, and accommodation
for increasing numbers.[83] There was a curious hesitation about
the plan of the west front. A central dome and two cupolas at the
north and south ends were designed; the south cupola was actually
finished. Anyone who enters the present gateway will see clearly
that it is designed to sustain a dome. But this dome was never
built; the southern cupola was even taken down in 1758, and the
front left as it now stands.[84]
These buildings are still far the best and most comfortable in the
College. All the bedrooms have fire-places, and even the inner
walls are nearly three feet thick. The rooms in the towers and
beside the gate are very spacious; and as we may presume that
the streets in front of the College were not so noisy as they
now are, were evidently intended as residences for Fellows, and
were occupied by them exclusively till the rise of the various
societies, to which they have afforded excellent reading and
committee rooms. Thus they remain to the present day a noble and
practical monument of the enterprise shown by the College and the
Irish Parliament in the eighteenth century. It is now no longer
the city only, but the country which is interested in the College.
Constant private bequests added to the public liberalities no
small increments; and so far as material prosperity was concerned,
the history of the College during the century is one of continued
growth in popularity and importance.
When we turn to the internal history, the estimate afforded us by
the facts recorded is by no means so satisfactory. As has been
already told, the Jacobite spirit at the opening of the century,
and the violent efforts of Provost Baldwin to subdue it, produced
the insubordination which usually accompanies tyrannical conduct
among young men of spirit living in a free country. Dignified as
the Provost affected to be, he was exposed to personal insults more
than once, not only from Fellows, but from students. Some facts
have been collected by Dr. Stubbs, from whose work I quote the
following:--
During the reigns of Queen Anne and of the first two Georges,
the annals of the College show that the Society suffered from
much insubordination on the part of certain of the Students. This
partly arose from laxity of discipline, and from the influence
of some disorderly and violent Students, and partly from
political causes which were connected with the party feelings
which prevailed [as at Oxford] with regard to the Revolution
and the Hanoverian Succession. It is quite clear that the great
majority of the Fellows, especially of the Senior Fellows,
were loyal to Queen Anne and to the House of Hanover. Yet it
could not be expected that an unanimity of views should prevail
among the Students. There appears to have been a small, but
determined, body among them warmly attached to the fortunes of
James the Second and his family, while the governing body of the
College resolutely determined to suppress all manifestations of
disloyalty to the reigning Sovereign. The earliest instance of
this is a case which occurred in 1708. One Edward Forbes, on
the same day on which he was admitted to the M.A. degree (July
12), took occasion to make a Latin speech, in which he asserted
that the Queen had no greater right to sit on the throne than
her predecessor had--that the title of each Sovereign _eodem
nititur fundamento_. This speech is said to have been made at
the Commencement supper. Forbes’ words, having been repeated
to the authorities, gave great offence to the loyal feelings
of the heads of the College, and to the leading members of
the University, and the orator was consequently expelled from
the College, and suspended from his degrees by the act of the
Provost and Senior Fellows. On the 2nd of the following month,
at a meeting of the Vice-Chancellor, Masters, and Doctors of the
University, Forbes was deprived of his degrees, and degraded from
his University rights; on the same occasion a declaration of
loyalty was put forward by the leading members of the University
Senate, and signed by the Vice-Chancellor, the Archbishop of
Dublin, and the Provost. This document, with the names of the
signatories, is preserved in the College Library. [_Cf._ Appendix
xxxiv. of Dr. Stubbs’ work.]
A strong party of Graduates was dissatisfied with the action of
the Provost and Senior Fellows in the case of Forbes, partly
from political reasons, and partly, perhaps, from a feeling that
the punishment awarded was more severe than the circumstances of
the case required. There can be no doubt that the sentiments of
the members of the Board agreed very closely with those of the
Whig party. We learn, however, from Dr. Edward Synge, afterwards
Archbishop of Tuam, that Forbes had a party of sympathisers
in the University. He says in his pamphlet, which he wrote
vindicating his well-known sermon on Toleration, preached in
1711:--
I remember particularly the constant efforts made in the
University of Dublin (by persons without doors against the
judgment of the Provost and Senior Fellows, who did all they
could to oppose them, and, thank God, prevailed), at every
Commencement for several years, to procure a repeal of the
sentence against Forbes, and a rasure (namely, from the
Register of the University) of those wicked words, _eodem
nititur fundamento_, which placed the title of the late Queen
on the same foot with that of her glorious predecessor.
There was still a small, but troublesome, party among the
Students who agreed with Forbes in his political opinions, for
we find from the College Register, under the date August 17,
1710, that Thomas Harvey, John Graffan, and William Vinicomes,
were proved to have been intoxicated in the College, and to
have crossed over the College walls into the city, and Harvey
was convicted of inflicting an indignity on the memory of King
William, by wrenching the baton out of the hand of his equestrian
statue erected in College Green in 1701. The other two aided and
abetted him in the act. They were all three expelled by the Board.
The heads of the College, as well as the leading Doctors and
Masters, found it necessary to clear the character of the
College from the charges of disloyalty to Queen Anne which were
persistently brought against it. Accordingly, we find in the
records of the proceedings of the Provost and Senior Fellows,
14th July, 1712, that the Vice-Chancellor having signified that
an address be presented to her Majesty from the congregation
in the Regent Houses, leave was given that such an address be
brought in.
On the 8th of February, 1713/4, Theodore Barlow was expelled
for drinking in the rooms of one of the Scholars to the memory
of the horse from which King William was thrown, to the great
danger of his life, and also to the health of the Pretender,
and for denouncing with a curse the Hanoverian Succession. The
heads of the College still deemed it necessary to set forth their
loyalty in the strongest terms, for the decree of expulsion of
Barlow runs as follows. The words are evidently those of the
Vice-Provost, Dr. Baldwin:--
“Visum est igitur Vice-Præposito et Sociis Senioribus, quibus
imprimis cara est Wilhelmi Regis Memoria, qui ex animorum
suorum sententia juraverunt Annæ Serenissimæe Reginæ nostræ
dignitatem et indubitatum Imperii titulum necnon successionem
in Illustrissimâ domo Hanoveriensi per leges stabilitam pro
virili defendere et conservare.”
They had still to combat the hostile spirit of a portion of
the University, who had now a new Vice-Chancellor, Dr. John
Vesey [?], Archbishop of Tuam, a man at that time of the age of
seventy-seven; and on the day after Barlow’s expulsion, at the
Shrovetide Commencements, several Students were prepared to take
their degrees; but some of the Graduates and non-resident Masters
of Arts having caused a motion to be made to the Vice-Chancellor
that the sentence of Forbes’ degradation should be read before
any public business should be proceeded with, the Archbishop was
in favour of having this done; but the Vice-Provost, Baldwin,
believing that this was for the purpose of having a resolution
passed repealing the sentence on Forbes, and relying on the
College regulation that no grace could be presented to the Senate
of the University without the consent of the Board, negatived
the motion. The Vice-Provost’s negative was not allowed by the
Vice-Chancellor, whereupon Baldwin withdrew from the Regent
House into the Provost’s house, followed by the rest of the
Senior Fellows, the Junior Proctor, and the Beadle. Then the
Vice-Chancellor and Masters sent to them by two of the Doctors of
Divinity the following message:--
“The Proctors, Registrar, and Beadle are cited and required to
repair to the Regent House, under pain of contempt.”
To which message the Vice-Provost and Senior Fellows sent the
following reply:--
“The Proctors, Registrar, and Beadle, having communicated to
the Vice-Provost and Senior Fellows the message sent to them by
the Reverend Doctors Hamilton and Gourney, with all humility
offer their opinion that they hold that without the consent
of the Vice-Provost and Senior Fellows nothing can be safely
done in this matter. And, moreover, the Vice-Provost and Senior
Fellows notify that they, with their above-named officers,
will return without further delay, if the Vice-Chancellor will
proceed to confer degrees, and to transact the other business
to which the Vice-Provost shall have consented. Otherwise they
must humbly beg to be excused, being unwilling to do anything
contrary to the Charter of Foundation, and the Laws and Customs
of the University.”
Upon receiving this reply, the Vice-Chancellor adjourned the
Commencement to the 11th of February.
A final outburst of political feeling took place in 1715. On the
8th of April in that year, a Student named Nathaniel Crump was
expelled for saying that Oliver Cromwell was to be preferred to
Charles I.; and five of the Students were publicly admonished for
breaking out of the College at night, and attacking the house
of one of the citizens. On the 31st of May, a Master of Arts, a
Bachelor of Arts, and an Undergraduate, were publicly admonished
for reading a scandalous pamphlet reflecting on the King, under
the name of “Nero Secundus;” and a notice was placed upon the
gates of the College denouncing this pamphlet, and threatening
the expulsion of all Students who should read it or make a copy
of it. The examinations for Scholarships and Fellowship proceeded
as usual, and on Saturday, the 11th of June, two days before the
election, an order came from the Lords Justices to the Provost
and Senior Fellows forbidding the election, based upon a King’s
Letter of the 6th of June, and stating as the grounds of this
prohibition the several disputes and tumults in Trinity College,
which disturbed the Students, and prevented them from studying
for these examinations. The elections, consequently, were not
held, although there was [were] one Fellowship and eleven
Scholarships vacant.
On the 27th of June a Master of Arts was expelled for making a
copy of the pamphlet “Nero Secundus,” and two Bachelors of Arts
were expelled for using language disrespectful to the King; and
on the 3rd of August two more of the Students were expelled on a
like charge. On the 12th of July the Provost and Senior Fellows
petitioned King George I. with respect to the above-mentioned
prohibition. They denied that there were any disputes or tumults
in the College which prevented the Students for preparing for
their several examinations, and stated that the number of
candidates for Fellowships was greater than usual, and the
answering entirely satisfactory. They stated, moreover, than
none of the candidates for the vacant Fellowship or Scholarships
were either accused or suspected of any crime; but they had on
all proper occasions expressed dutiful zeal to the King’s person
and Government. They asked permission to hold the election.
Mr. Elwood and Mr. Howard were sent to London to present this
petition to the King.
On the 16th of February, 1715/6, the Prince of Wales was elected
Chancellor, on the attainder of the Duke of Ormonde, and the
Provost and Dr. Howard were sent to London to present to his
Royal Highness the formal instrument of appointment.
On the 28th of April a letter was received from the Lords
Justices, enclosing a copy of a letter from the King, removing
the prohibition to the election of Fellows and Scholars, and the
statutable examinations were held in the usual manner. On Trinity
Monday one Fellow and thirty-four Scholars were elected.
The following extracts from the MS. letters of Archbishop
King in the College Library will throw some light upon these
proceedings:--
_June 4, 1715._ To Mr. Delafoy.--“The business of the College
makes the greatest noise. Ten years ago I saw very well what
was doing there, and used all means in my power to prevent it;
but the strain was too strong for me, as you very well know,
and ’twill be necessary to use some effectual means to purge
that fountain, which otherwise may corrupt the whole kingdom.
Their Visitors are only the Chancellor and I. We ought to
visit once in three years, but I could never prevail on their
Chancellor to join with me, though I often proposed it;[85] nor
is there any hope that I shall be able to do any good whilst I
am under such circumstances. I take the Chancellor to be for
life, and this makes an impossibility. I believe the Parliament
when it sits will be inclined to look into this matter.”
_June 21, 1715._--“The College readily submitted to his
Majesty’s order to forbear their elections, and I hope will
acquit themselves much better than the University of Oxford has
done by their programme.”
_July 7, 1715._ To Mr. Addison.--“The business of the College
gives a great deal of trouble to every honest man, and a
peculiar pain to me. ’Tis plain there’s a nest of Jacobites
in it: one was convicted last Term; two are run away; and I
believe bills are found against one or two more. But we can’t
as yet reach the fountains of the corruption; but I assure you
no diligence is wanting, and everybody looks on it to be of the
last consequence to purge the fountain of education. I believe
next Parliament will look into the matter.”
In addition to political feeling, there appear to have been from
the beginning of the eighteenth century a few very disorderly
Students in the College, who were always giving trouble to the
authorities.
During the Provostship of George Browne, one of the worst riots
took place in the College, fortunately unattended at the time
by loss of life. [The Provost died of its effects!] College
discipline had become disorganised in the unsettled period which
succeeded the battle of the Boyne, and the Provost and Senior
Fellows resolved to subdue the disorderly spirit which had
manifested itself in the College. They determined to admonish
publicly three or four of the Students who had been particularly
disorderly, and the heads of the College proceeded in a body to
the Hall for that purpose. A few determined Students advanced
resolutely, tore the Admonition paper out of the hands of the
Dean, and turned the Provost out of the Hall. It was probably
on this occasion that Provost George Browne received the blow
which has been mentioned in a previous page. A later instance of
similar insubordination occurred about thirty years afterwards,
when the Provost and Senior Fellows proceeded to the Hall for the
like purpose of punishing some turbulent Students. They were met
on their way with unseemly affronts and reproaches. The doors
of the Hall were locked against them by the Students, and they
were obliged to break open the doors in order to promulgate their
sentence.
In 1733 the rooms of one of the Fellows were attacked by
six or eight of the Students, and they perpetrated there
disgraceful mischief and outrage. The rebellious spirit of some
of the Students went so far that, when they were expelled,
or rusticated, they refused to leave the College, and the
authorities could not put them out without violence. One of the
Students so expelled actually assaulted a Senior Fellow in the
Hall while the sentence of his expulsion was being read out.
These violent proceedings on the part of a few reckless Students
were aided by outsiders, who always came into College when riots
were expected. Thus the unhappy disorders in the College had
become widely known, and were fast bringing the institution to
the lowest disrepute.
A contemporary pamphlet complains that while there were in
the College from five hundred to six hundred Students between
seventeen and twenty-four years of age, there were only twenty
Masters to control them. The Scholars objected to the statutable
custom of capping the Fellows, and it states that--
When the Board meets to inquire into a violation of the
Statutes on the part of the Students, the young gentlemen who
are conscious of their guilt assemble in the courts below; they
have secured a number of their friends; they are surrounded by
a great crowd of their brethren; how many they may have engaged
to be of their party is not to be discovered, and they give,
perhaps, plain intimations that they will not suffer them to be
censured. Trusting in their numbers, they will not suffer any
one man to be singled out for an example.... Physical violence
is consequently to be expected by the Provost, Senior Fellows,
and the Dean proceeding to the Hall to read out censures.
Primate Boulter’s letters throw some light upon the state of
discipline in the College at this time. Baldwin, now become
Provost, most likely from his known devotion to the Whig party
and the Hanoverian Succession, and his efforts to subdue the
Jacobite faction in College, was a man of a very arbitrary and
determined character. He appears to have used the full authority
which the Statutes gave him, and frequently summoned the two
Deans, and removed from the College books the names of disorderly
Students without consulting the Board. Some of the Senior
Fellows, notably Dr. Delany, a strong Tory, whose politics were
shared by his friend and colleague, Dr. Helsham, were opposed to
these arbitrary proceedings, and took measures in London to bring
the matter before the Council, in order to have the Provost’s
statutable power in these matters curtailed. We learn from
Boulter’s letters to the Duke of Newcastle, that early in 1725--
Two Undergraduates of the College, one of them a Scholar,
had company at their chambers till about an hour after the
keys of the College were carried, according to custom, to the
Provost. When their company was willing to go, upon finding the
College gates shut, and being told the keys were carried to
the Provost, the Scholars went to the Provost’s lodgings, and
knocked there in an outrageous manner. Upon the Provost’s man
coming to the door to see what was the matter, they told him
they came for the keys to let out their friends, and would have
them, or they would break open the gates. He assured them the
keys were carried to his master, and that he durst not awake
him to get them, and then the man withdrew. Upon their coming
again to knock with great violence at the Provost’s door, he
was forced to rise, and came down and told them they should
not have the keys, and bid his man and the porter take notice
who they were. The next day he called the two Deans to his
assistance, as their Statutes require, and sent for the lads to
his lodgings. The Scholar of the house came, but not the other.
To him they proposed his making a submission for his fault in
the Hall, and being publicly admonished there. This he made a
difficulty in doing; and upon their proceeding to the Hall,
when he came out of the lodgings he put on his hat before the
Provost and walked off. The Provost and Deans went on to the
Hall, and after waiting there some time to see whether he would
come and submit, they expelled them both.
The Scholar’s name was Annesley, a relation of Lord Anglesea, and
through his influence with the Lord Lieutenant (Lord Carteret)
and the Visitors [and upon his apologising] he was restored....
We find that he took the B.A. degree in 1726, and that of M.A. in
1729.
* * * * *
We are told in a pamphlet, supposed to have been written by Dr.
Madden, that one of the Students, after a long course of neglect
of duties, as well as for a notorious insult [committed] upon the
Junior Dean, was publicly admonished. In order to resent this
punishment, ten or twelve of the Students behaved themselves in
a most outrageous manner; they stoned the Dean out of the Hall,
breaking into his rooms, and destroying everything in them. They
continued to ravage other parts of the College until the middle
of the night, evidently endangering the life of the person who
was the object of their resentment. Dr. Madden adds that this was
done “in a time of great lenity of discipline--perhaps too much
so.” “The Board offered considerable rewards for the discovery
of the perpetrators of these riotous proceedings; the Students
retorted by offering higher rewards to anyone who would bring
in the informer, dead or alive. A threatening letter was sent
to the Provost. Strangers from town, as was usually the case,
came into the College to assist in the pillage. One of these
attempted to set fire to the College gates; and had not some of
the well-disposed Students prevented this, they would have laid
the whole College in ashes, as the flames would have caught hold
of the ancient buildings, extravagantly timbered after the old
manner, and would have reached the new buildings [the Library
Square], and the flames could not then have been extinguished.”
One of the Junior Fellows, named Edward Ford, who had been
elected in 1730, had rendered himself particularly obnoxious to
the Students. He was not Junior Dean; but he appears to have
been an obstinate and ill-judging man, who took upon himself
to restrain the Students in an imprudent manner. They resented
this interference. He had been often insulted by them, and had
received a threatening letter. This caused him much dejection of
spirits; and as his rooms had suffered in the previous tumult,
he kept loaded arms always by his side. One night he was asleep
in his rooms (No. 25), over a passage which then led from the
Library Square into the playground (a walled-in enclosure which
at that time occupied the site of the present New Square). A
loaded gun lay by his bedside. Some of the Students threw stones
against his windows, which was the usual way in which they
annoyed the College authorities. Ford rose from his bed and fired
upon them from his window, which faced the playground. Determined
to retaliate, the band of Students rushed to their chambers,
seized the fire-arms, which they had persisted in keeping
(although such had been forbidden, under pain of expulsion, by a
decree of the Board, March 24, 1730), and they ran back to the
playground. In the meanwhile one of the Scholars, who resided
in the same house, seeing the danger in which Ford was placed,
and knowing the character of the man, managed to get into his
bedroom, and strongly urged him to remain in bed. Ford, with his
characteristic obstinacy, would not listen to this advice, but
went to the window in his nightdress, when the Students seeing
him, fired at the window, and wounded him mortally. Poor Ford
lingered in great agony for about two hours before he died. The
Board immediately met and investigated the circumstances of the
murder, and expelled Mr. Cotter, Mr. Crosby, Boyle, Scholes, and
Davis, as being the authors of or participators in Mr. Ford’s
murder. The Board employed Mr. Jones, an attorney, to prosecute
them for murder at the Commission Court, at which trial, however,
they were acquitted.
We learn from contemporary pamphlets that the feeling among the
upper classes in Dublin was greatly excited about this affair.
Many, especially ladies, strongly took the part of the young men--
The Fellows were the subjects of common obloquy; every little
indiscretion of their former lives was ripped up; everything
they said or did had a wrong turn given to it. Numberless false
stories about them were spread throughout the kingdom. Some of
them were publicly affronted in the Courts of Law by one of his
Majesty’s servants for appearing to do the common offices of
every honest man. One noble Lord declared that a Fellow’s blood
did not deserve an inquisition which might detain a man one day
from his ordinary business. However, the Judges (except one)
all spoke loudly in favour of the College, and specially the
Chief Baron.
Primate Boulter is said to have often appeared astonished when
he heard gentlemen talk as if they were determined to destroy
the Irish seat of learning. It is added that “many did this for
the purpose of injuring religion.” No doubt the true explanation
of the animosity to the College is to be sought in the strong
political feelings which prevailed at the time. The Fellows were
mainly Whigs, and their opponents belonged to the Tory party.
Early in March, 1734/5, the Visitors cited the Provost, Fellows,
and Scholars to appear at a Visitation on the 20th of that month.
Primate Boulter wrote to the Duke of Dorset that--
There have been such difficulties started from the College,
and so much listened to by their Vice-Chancellor, the Bishop
of Clogher [Dr. Stearne], that I fear the Visitation will
not prove such as will answer expectation. I have taken all
opportunities of desiring the Fellows and their friends to
avoid all needless disputes and oppositions for fear of their
falling into the hands of worse Visitors next Session of
Parliament. I hope and fear the best; but things do not promise
very well.
The above cited pamphlet states that “at the late inquiry into
the condition of the College, there could not be discovered more
than two or three insignificant points in which the Statutes were
deviated from by the Fellows.”
To this account we should add that Swift, who disliked and despised
Baldwin, took a great interest in the Visitation of 1734, and
went down to give his opinion concerning the management of the
College, which he thought very bad. He also wrote to the Duke of
Dorset on the subject (Jan. 14, 1735). But the fact added by Dr.
Stubbs, that after the affair of Ford we hear no more of riots or
of insubordination, shows that the mischief was not deep-seated,
but caused by some small knot of rowdies. It does not appear that
they were led by young men of the higher classes, for though many
frequented the College at that time, no names of prominence (save
an Annesley) are mentioned in connection with any of the outrages.
Such disorders have always been rather the fault of the Governors
than of the students of the College. The course of Irish history
is so uniform, the temper of the various classes in the nation is
so unchanged (as every student of Irish history knows), that I do
not believe the discipline which is so easily maintained now in
Trinity College was ever seriously endangered, and the very fact
that so many brilliant and learned men were being educated there
at that period shows that its intellectual life was not impaired.
The particular form of the studies pursued cannot be easily
estimated. An examination of the Laudian Statutes shows that the
authorities were not allowed in any way to change the subjects
laid down for the course in 1637. The whole body of the teaching,
as already explained, was oral, and each student reproduced in
essays or disputations what he had been taught by his tutor during
the week. Hence it was that such short books as those written by
Dudley Loftus or Narcissus Marsh, though used by lecturers, were
not formally proposed to the students. Locke’s Essay, as we know,
was introduced into the post-graduate studies by the influence of
Ashe and Molyneux before 1700, and has influenced the spirit of the
University ever since; but this, too, was outside the prescribed
course. It was not till 1760 that, by a special statute, the
Provost and Board were permitted to make such changes in the course
as they thought expedient. This permission, conceded long after it
was needed and indeed assumed,[86] marks an epoch in the history of
the College. But it belongs to the reign, not of Baldwin, but of
his enlightened and brilliant successor, Andrews.
[Illustration: (Decorative chapter ending)]
FOOTNOTES:
[66] A mistake for Loftus, the first Provost. This full-length
portrait is now in the Provost’s House. What has become of the
second picture is uncertain. The tomb, alas, is now a mere ruin, to
be described in another chapter.
[67] This shows how long the project was discussed. The money was
not given till ten years later.
[68] The only mention of this house, which was replaced by the
present mansion 70 years later.
[69] Dr. Anthony Dopping.
[70] This character, intended to enliven the solemnity of public
acts, appears to have been borrowed from the precedent of Oxford.
In a curious book intitled _Terræ Filius_ (London, 1726), which
consists of a series of satires upon that University, the anonymous
author says--“It has, till of late, been a custom, from time
immemorial, for one of our family to mount the Rostrum at Oxford
at certain seasons [during the Acts of the Term], and divert
an innumerable crowd of spectators, who flocked to hear him
from all parts, with a merry oration, interspersed with secret
history, raillery, and sarcasm.... Several indignities having been
offered to the grave fathers of the University, they said to one
another--‘Gentlemen, these are no jests; if we suffer this, we
shall become the sport of freshmen and servitors. Let us expel
him.’ And, accordingly, _Terræ Filius_ was expelled during almost
every Act.” And again (p. xi.)--“Though it has, of late years, been
thought expedient to lay aside the solemnity of a _Publick Act_,
and it is very uncertain when _Terræ Filius_ will be able to regain
his antient privileges.”
There is a frontispiece to the book, signed W. Hogarth, which
represents an enraged Don tearing in pieces the libel of the _Terræ
Filius_, who is in the middle of an excited crowd of collegians
and ladies. The author speaks of the seditious spirit of Oxford
in the very way that the spirit of Dublin is censured at the same
time; and just as the _Terræ Filius_ of Oxford had been censured
and persecuted when his jests became libellous, so in Swift’s day,
just before the Centenary time, one Jones, an intimate of Swift’s,
had been deprived of his degrees for a satire, which Barrett has
published as possibly composed by Swift to aid his friend.--_Cf._
Barrett’s _Early Life of Swift_ (London, 1808).
The heads at Oxford, holding public acts in 1712, stopt the mouth
of the _Terræ Filius_ (who is called a _statutable_ orator at this
solemnity), having intelligence that he designed to utter something
in derogation of the Reverend Mr. Vice-Chancellor, _op_. _cit_. p.
100. This is probably the affair spoken of in J. C. Jeaffreson’s
_Annals of Oxford_, ii. 224, but referred to the year 1713. Mr.
Jeaffreson has a whole chapter on the subject.
[71] I owe to the kindness of Mr. J. R. Garstin my knowledge of
this rare tract, of which the title-page is reproduced on page 52;
the bidding prayer is given on page 10. A passage which smacks
of the 17th century is as follows. The preacher is arguing that
Learning can amply satisfy all the aspirations and desires of human
nature. He concludes--“Lastly, what Raptures can the _Voluptuous_
man fancy, to which those of _Learning_ and _Knowledge_ are
not equal? If he can relish nothing but the pleasures of his
_Senses, Natural Philosophy_ exposes the _beautiful bosome_ of the
_Universe_, admits him into _Nature’s_ garden, &c.”
[72] The appointment of this Browne is the subject of various
curious letters preserved in the Ormonde MSS. at Kilkenny Castle
(Vol. 156). I give the first completely, and extracts from the
others. They might have been written yesterday.
9644 Trinity College, Dub., May 16, ’99.
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR GRACE,
Our Provost in appearance is past recovery, yet I had not so soon
made any application to succeed him, but that others have been
beforehand with me by another Interest.
Tho’ I have reason to hope for a recommendation of me by
Government, yet I am not willing to use any endeavours without your
Grace’s knowledge and concurrence. I am sensible it is a place of
great trust and importance to the whole kingdom, and if your Grace
upon inquiry shall find me qualified to discharge it, I do most
humbly beg your Grace’s favour in recommending me to His Majesty
for it.--That God may continue, &c., &c., Your humble & obed.
PETER BROWNE.
9645. The Provost of this College being now near his end, which I
am heartily sorry for, I presume amongst the many addresses, &c.
I beg to recommend the Restoring the same Person to it whom your
Grace’s grandfather himself put in, I mean Dr. Huntington, who upon
the Dispersion here was as a Father to all that then went over, and
provided so well for some of them when they were in England, that 2
of your Bps., viz., Dr. Ashe and Dr. Smith, owe their Preferments
in a manner entirely to him, for it was he who laid the foundation
of them, tho’ he is now entirely neglected.
This unfortunate Person, for so I must needs call him, except your
G^{ce} becomes his Patron, left the College upon the Revolution, or
was rather by Providence sent over to provide for those who knew
not what to do for themselves. Then he married, &c., but is still
capable of the Place by the King’s Dispensation, as Dr. Seele was,
at the Restoration, and obtained it in that way. And because this
Gentleman has already showed himself one of the most usefull men
in that place, and the likelyhood to prove the most serviceable to
it now it is in its Rubbish, I now take the confidence, who was
employed by the late Duke, my master, to bring him over, &c.
WILL. [Moreton, Bp. of] KILDARE.
[Extracts.] Dub. 6 June, 1699.
9648. The Provost of the Coll. being dead on Sunday night, it will
import your G^{ce} as Chancellor to interpose, &c. I know Mr. Peter
Browne, who is an eminent preacher & Senior Fellow, &c., will be
recommended, &c., &c.
[Sir] RICHARD COX.
9649. Ardhaccan, June 7th.
Our excellent Provost being dead, &c., that you will be pleased to
recommend Dr. Owen Lloyd, who is our Div. Prof., or Dr. John Hall,
who is Vice-Provost, to his Majesty, &c., &c.
I hear the Lords Justices have recommended one Mr. Peter Browne,
who is a S^r Fellow, & has a parish in the City of Dublin, &c., &c.
Nor is it my opinion alone, but that of the Bp. of Clogher (Ashe),
who was formerly Provost, & has now earnestly importuned me to
address your G. & the Arbp. of Cant. in Dr. Lloyd’s or Dr. Hall’s
behalfe, and to Pray your G^{rce} that Mr. Peter Browne, who is
much their junior, may not have it, &c., &c. I have sent the Bp.’s
letter to His G^{ce} of Cant., in which the late Provost’s opinion
of Mr. Browne’s unfitness for the place is fully declared.
RICH. MEATH.
[73] To him and to Swift in this generation, to Goldsmith,
Sheridan, and Burke in the next, are due in great part the
development of modern English prose. In this, as in so many other
ways, the Anglo-Irish have been the masters of the English.
[74] I may recall to the reader the dignified protest of the first
Duke of Ormonde, against this very practice, in the interests of
the University, above, p. 33.
[75] I remember being told by the late Provost to formulate my
protest as soon as possible, for that the demolition of these
buildings would be commenced within a fortnight. My argument in
their favour was, that while they were perfectly sound, they were
also historical evidences of the antiquity of the College, and of
its condition in 1700. I remember adding that it might be a very
long fortnight before the work of destruction began.
[76] _Cf._ Stubbs, p. 177.
[77] The petition to Parliament in 1787 states “that from an
attention to the health and accommodation of their students,
petitioners have expended considerable sums of money _in the
purchase_ of ground for the enlargement of their park, the
enclosing and finishing of which will be attended with considerable
expense” (Taylor, p. 95). The fact here officially stated, that the
College increased its holding of land in Dublin by purchase during
the eighteenth century, is very interesting, and is probably to be
explained by searching the Register.
[78] This seems to me one of the boldest acts of Baldwin. We should
have expected to find the incompetent workman either employed to
repeat his work on the new Hall, or at least pensioned by the Board.
[79] The east end subsided in the present century, and was then
rebuilt, in the memory of the present Vice-Provost, from whom I
have learned the fact.
[80] The Dublin papers of June, 1744, speak with enthusiasm of the
arrival of this great bell, “on which the mere import duty was £20,
and which all lovers of harmony allow to be the largest, finest,
and sweetest-toned bell in the kingdom. It was cast by the famous
Rudhall of Gloucester.”
[81] The picture given by Dr. Stubbs was possibly never realised.
There are several extant views of the College subsequent to 1745
and up to 1797, which all represent the belfry as a dome without
the lantern or the vane, “consisting of a harp and crown, copper
gilt” (Stubbs, p. 187). A rare aquatint of 1784 does, however,
give the vane, with other details which are highly improbable. It
was a habit to print architects’ drawings of buildings in process
of completion, as may be seen in Poole and Cash’s views, in which
many plates give the intentions of the architect, which were never
carried out.
[82] Mr. Taylor, in his history, has given all the petitions and
replies from the Journals of the House of Commons. The following
is the summary:--Queen Anne and George I. for Library--in 1709,
£5,000; 1717, £5,000; 1721, £5,000. George II. for Parliament
Square--1751, £5,000; 1753, £20,000; 1755, £5,000 (£20,000 asked
for in the petition): 1757, £5,000; 1759, £10,000. George III., in
1787, £3,000. Between the last two dates considerable sums were
obtained from the Board of Erasmus Smith.
[83] While the impossibility of defraying these expenses without a
building fund is strongly urged in the various petitions, another
set of documents, the King’s Letters, issued for the increase of
salaries of Provost, Fellows, and other officers in 1758, 1759,
1761, and subsequently, state as the reason the great increase
in the revenues of the College, which justify such changes. No
one seems to have thought of comparing these statements with the
begging petitions.
[84] No reasons are assigned by Dr. Stubbs, who reports these facts
apparently from the Register; but we may infer that the large
square Hall over the gate was thought necessary for a Regent House,
or Hall for the disputations of the Masters, in place of the older
room, which disappeared with the demolishing of decayed buildings;
and by this title we know that that Hall was originally known. This
alteration of plan would make a dome impossible. As soon as the
central dome was abandoned, it would follow that the cupolas, one
of which had been already finished, must also be abandoned.
[85] This cannot easily be reconciled with the statement above made
(p. 65), that Archbishop Vesey was Vice-Chancellor in the previous
year, and in the absence of the Chancellor could act as Visitor.
[86] The facts in Dr. Stubbs’ 10th chapter, especially the
classical course of 1736, show that the 15th chapter of the old
Statute was liberally interpreted. Indeed Greek and Latin are there
prescribed, but the books not specified. In Logic the directions
are far more precise. Nor was there any relaxation of the strict
directions with regard to Latin Essays and summaries of work, or
to Disputations, which certainly lasted till the close of the 18th
century.
[Illustration: (Decorative chapter heading)]