Produced by Laura Wisewell, David Wilson and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (The
original copy of this book was generously made available
for scanning by the Department of Mathematics at the
University of Glasgow.)









CAMBRIDGE PAPERS.




       MACMILLAN AND CO., Limited
  LONDON · BOMBAY · CALCUTTA · MADRAS
               MELBOURNE

         THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
      NEW YORK · BOSTON · CHICAGO
         DALLAS · SAN FRANCISCO

   THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Ltd.
                TORONTO




CAMBRIDGE PAPERS

BY
W.W. ROUSE BALL
FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.


MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
ST MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON

1918

[_All rights reserved_]




PREFACE.


This volume contains papers on some questions of local history put
together, mostly for undergraduate societies and magazines, at various
times during the last twenty-five years. I have included a memoir,
written for a London Society, on Newton's _Principia_, a work that
profoundly affected the development of University studies in the
eighteenth century, and a chapter on the History of the Mathematical
Tripos, which at one time appeared in my _Mathematical Recreations and
Essays_, since these are concerned with Cambridge subjects.

I print the papers, whether long or short, and whether read at length
or, as was more often the case, curtailed in delivery, substantially
in the form in which they were first written. This leaves allusions
which bear evidence to their domestic origin, and involves, in those
of them dealing with cognate subjects, some repetition of facts. If
these are defects they could be removed only by rewriting much of what
appears here; it seems to me preferable to let the essays stand in
their original forms, save occasionally for the addition of a
paragraph or sentence dealing with what has happened since they were
first presented. The dates in the text are reckoned in the modern
style, taking the year as beginning on the first day of January.

  W.W. ROUSE BALL.
  Trinity College, Cambridge.
  _January, 1918._




TABLE OF CONTENTS.

                                                  PAGE
  Preface                                            v

    =Part I. Concerning Trinity College.=

  Chapter I.    The Foundation of Trinity College    3
  Chapter II.   The Tutorial System                 26
  Chapter III.  The Westminster Scholars            48
  Chapter IV.   The Society for the Prevention of
                  Cruelty to Undergraduates         71
  Chapter V.    The College Chapel                  84
  Chapter VI.   Some College Treasures             104
  Chapter VII.  The College Auditors               127
  Chapter VIII. Wren's Designs for the Library     144
  Chapter IX.   A Christmas Journey in 1319        154
  Chapter X.    An Outline of the College Story    161

    =Part II. Concerning the University.=

  Chapter XI.   The Beginnings of the University   179
  Chapter XII.  Discipline                         194
  Chapter XIII. Newton's _Principia_               225
  Chapter XIV.  Newton on University Studies       244
  Chapter XV.   The Mathematical Tripos            252

  Index                                            317




PART I.

=Concerning Trinity College.=




CHAPTER I.

THE FOUNDATION OF TRINITY COLLEGE.


Trinity College was founded by Henry VIII in 1546. To obtain a site
for it, he suppressed King's Hall and Michael-House, two medieval
colleges which were built on or owned most of the ground now occupied
by the Great Court, and with their revenues, largely augmented by
property of dissolved monasteries, he endowed it. The scheme of the
College and his objects in founding it are stated in his letters
patent of 19 December 1546, and particulars of the income assigned by
him to the foundation are set out in his charter of dotation dated
24 December 1546. These documents have been printed[1] and are readily
accessible, but the history of the events leading up to the foundation
of the College is less generally known. I cannot promise that the
story in itself is interesting but the material facts have never
before been brought together[2] so its telling is justified.

After the dissolution of the monastic houses, anxiety was felt in
Cambridge and Oxford lest they should suffer a similar fate. The
policy of the suppression of the two universities and the confiscation
of their property was openly advocated by politicians at court, and
naturally great alarm was felt when in 1544 an Act[3] was passed
empowering the king to dissolve any college at either university, and
appropriate its possessions.

The universities were right in thinking that the danger was pressing,
for Parker, who played a leading part in the affair, has put on
record[4] the fact that after the passing of the Act certain courtiers
importunately sued the king to have the possessions of both bodies
surveyed, meaning afterwards to obtain the same on easy terms. In
these circumstances the Cambridge authorities, says Strype, "looked
about them and made all the friends they could at court to save
themselves." In particular they urgently begged the aid of two of
their professors, John Cheke, then acting as tutor to the prince of
Wales, and Thomas Smith, then clerk to the queen's council. Here is
the letter[5] of the senate to Smith on the subject:

  Si tu is es, Clarissime Smithe, in quem Academia haec
  Cantabrigiensis universas vires suas, universa pietatis jura
  exercuerit, si tibi uni omnia doctrinae suae genera, omnia reipub.
  ornamenta libentissime contulerit, si fructum gloriae suae in te uno
  jactaverit, si spem salutis suae in te potissimum reposuerit: age
  ergo, et mente ac cogitatione tua complectere, quid tu vicissim illi
  debes, quid illa, quid literae, quid respublica, quid Deus ipse pro
  tantis pietatis officiis, quibus sic dignitas tua efflorescit,
  justissime requirit: Academia nil debet tibi, imo omnia sua in te
  transfudit. Et propterea abs te non simpliciter petit beneficium,
  sed merito repetit officium: nec unam aliquam causam tibi proponit,
  sed sua omnia, et seipsam tibi committit. Nec sua necesse habet
  aperire tibi consilia, quorum recessus et diverticula nosti
  universa. Age igitur quod scis, et velis quod potes, et perfice
  quod debes. Sic literis, academiae, reipublicae, et religioni; sic
  Christo et Principi rem debitam et expectatam efficies. Jesus te
  diutissime servet incolumem.

Parker tells us that the London friends of the University, among whom
Smith and Cheke were doubtless conspicuous, wisely took the line of
welcoming an enquiry, but begged the king to avoid the expense of a
costly investigation. Their representations were successful, and he
issued a commission[6] dated 16 January 1546 to Matthew Parker (then
vice-chancellor, and later archbishop of Canterbury), John Redman
(warden of King's Hall, chaplain to the king, and later master of
Trinity), and William Mey (president of Queens', and later
archbishop-elect of York) to report to him on the revenues of the
colleges and the numbers of students sustained therewith. The
commissioners were capable and friendly.

The king must have been impatient to know the facts, for in less than
a week, on 21 January, he ordered Parker to come to Hampton Court with
the report. Immediate compliance was impossible, but the command may
well have stimulated the commissioners to act as rapidly as possible.
In fact they obtained the services of eleven clerks from the Court of
Augmentations in London, and at once set to work to collect
information.

The University was keenly alive to the risks it was incurring. To
placate the king, the senate, on 13 February, put all its belongings
at his service, and when forwarding a copy of the grace to Secretary
Sir William Paget it reminded him of the value of the University to
the state, and begged his protection. At the same time it addressed
the queen, Katharine Parr, through Thomas Smith, imploring her
advocacy.[7]

The queen replied[8] on 26 February. After complaining that he had
written to her in Latin, though he could equally well have expressed
himself in the vulgar tongue, she discoursed at length on the duties
of members of the University, and, saying that she was confident that
her wishes in these respects would be fulfilled, she concluded her
letter as follows:

  I (according to your desires) have attempted my lord the King's
  Majesty, for the establishment of your livelihood and possessions:
  in which, notwithstanding his Majesty's property and interest,
  through the consent of the high court of parliament, his Highness
  being such a patron to good learning, doth tender you so much, that
  he will rather advance learning and erect new occasion thereof than
  [to] confound those your ancient and godly institutions, so that
  learning may hereafter justly ascribe her very original whole
  conservation and sure stay to our Sovereign Lord.

This was good news, and things now moved rapidly. By the end of
February the commissioners had drawn up a detailed report giving the
information required. It is printed[9] at length in the _Cambridge
Documents_, 1852, and occupies nearly 200 pages.

The commissioners in person presented to the king at Hampton Court a
brief summary of this report. We do not know the date of this
interview, but conjecturally it may be put as being early in March.
Parker has left[10] in his own handwriting a full account of their
reception as follows:

  In the end, the said commissioners resorted up to Hampton Court to
  present to the King a brief summary written in a fair sheet of
  vellum (which very book is yet reserved in the college of Corpus
  Christi) describing the revenues, the reprises, the allowances, and
  number and stipend of every College. Which book the King diligently
  perused; and in a certain admiration said to certain of his lords
  which stood by, that he thought he had not in his realm so many
  persons so honestly maintained in living by so little land and rent:
  and where he asked of us what it meant that the most part of
  Colleges should seem to expend yearly more than their revenues
  amounted to; we answered that it rose partly of fines for leases and
  indentures of the farmers renewing their leases, partly of wood
  sales: whereupon he said to the lords, that pity it were these lands
  should be altered to make them worse; (at which words some were
  grieved, for that they disappointed _lupos quosdam hiantes_). In
  fine, we sued to the King's Majesty to be so gracious lord, that he
  would favour us in the continuance of our possessions such as they
  were, and that no man by his grace's letters should require to
  permute with us to give us worse. He made answer and smiled, that he
  could not but write for his servants and others, doing the service
  for the realm in wars and other affairs, but he said he would put us
  to our choice whether we should gratify them or no, and bade us hold
  our own, for after his writing he would force us no further. With
  which words we were well armed, and so departed.

This important interview was followed by a rumour that it was Henry's
intention to found at Cambridge a new and magnificent college to serve
as an enduring record of his interest in learning, and perhaps the
University may have taken the queen's letter as indicating what was
coming. It is believed that Henry had long entertained vague ideas of
the kind, but that the definite suggestion, which was encouraged by
the queen, originated with Redman, who, as royal chaplain, had
constant access to the king and considerable influence with him.

The preparations for Henry's proposed foundation were made with
extreme speed: a wise course in view of his failing health and
variable temper. It was decided to take advantage of the Act of 1544
and suppress King's Hall and Michael-House, using their grounds and
adjoining property as the site of the new college. We have no
reference to the appointment of commissioners for the business, though
there is an allusion, quoted later, to receivers: perhaps the matter
was left in the hands of the officials of the Court of Augmentations.
Redman was the chief authority at Cambridge in the arrangements that
had to be made there, and it was intended that he should be the first
master of the new college when it was founded.

The two Societies above mentioned were (save for Peterhouse) the
oldest in the University. To Trinity men their history has, naturally,
great interest, and I interpolate a few remarks on this and their
position in 1546.

The King's Scholars, normally thirty-two in number and of all ages
from fourteen upwards, were established by Edward II under a warden in
1317 and incorporated in 1337. They had for their original home a
large house (King's Hall) situated on the grass plot and walk in front
of the present chapel, and rapidly acquired all the adjacent land
between the High Street (now known as Trinity Street) and the river,
extending their buildings in various directions. Popular writers
sometimes assert or assume that all medieval colleges were founded for
poor students. That is not universally true. No condition of poverty
was imposed on the scholars of King's Hall, nor was their life here
penurious: they had a dining-hall, library, common room, chapel,
kitchens, a brewery, a vineyard, a garden, and a staff of servants
maintained by the Society, while a good many of them also kept their
own private servants: they received a liberal allowance for daily
commons, clothes and bedding were supplied from the royal wardrobe,
and pocket-money was given to buy other things. They were appointed
by the crown largely from among the families of court officials,
nominations being restricted to those who knew Latin. After completing
their course many of these students entered what we may call the
higher civil service of the time in church or state.

In the report of the commissioners, the annual income of King's Hall
was returned as £214. 0s. 3d. and the expenses as £263. 16s. 7d.; and
it was stated that at the time there were on its boards, a master,
twenty-five graduate fellows, and seven undergraduate fellows,
besides servants. The Society owned the patronage of the livings of
Arrington, Bottisham, St Mary's Cambridge, Chesterton, Fakenham,
Felmersham, and Grendon. According to the return, the normal annual
expenditure of King's Hall, if all the scholars resided, required
£182. 18s. 4d. for the emoluments of the warden and fellows (namely,
£8. 13s. 4d. for the warden, £5. 10s. 0d. for each of twenty-five
graduate fellows, and £5. 5s. 0d. for each of seven undergraduate
fellows); £32. 2s. 0d. for the college servants (namely, the butler,
barber, baker, brewer, laundress, cook, under-cook, and the warden's
servant); £3. 1s. 4d. for the estate officers and quit-rents; £3. 19s.
4d. for the expenses of the chapel services and the bible-clerk; £5.
0s. 0d. for firing for the hall and kitchen; £5. 0s. 0d. for rushes
for the hall; £5. 10s. 4d. for the exequies of the founder and the
following refections; £29. 1s. 4d. for repairs and renewals; and £10
for extraordinary expenses.

The other College (Michael-House) whose buildings were transferred to
Trinity was of a different type. It was founded by Hervey de Stanton
in 1324 for a master and six secular clergy who wished to study in the
University. Their original home was a large house on the site of the
present combination room and the land round it; later they acquired
all the property between Foul Lane and the river. At first the
Society's means were barely sufficient for its needs, but in time it
received many gifts, and the foundation was increased to a master and
eight priests with chaplains and bible-clerks. It had an oratory in
its House but did not need a chapel as it owned St Michael's Church;
traces of this ownership will be noticed in the arrangement for stalls
(to be occupied by members of the Society) in the choir, which is sunk
below the level of the nave and chancel.

In the report of the commissioners, the annual income of Michael-House
was returned as £141. 13s. 1¾d. and its expenses as £143. 18s. 0d.;
and it was stated that there were on its boards a master, eight
fellows, and three chaplains, besides servants. Besides St Michael's
Cambridge, the Society owned the patronage of the livings of
Barrington, Boxworth, Cheadle, Grundisburgh, and Orwell. According to
the return, the normal annual expenditure of Michael-House required a
sum of £91. 10s. 8d. for the emoluments of the Society (namely, £7.
6s. 8d. for the master, £47. 17s. 4d. for the six fellows on the
original foundation, £11. 6s. 8d. for the two Illegh fellows, £15 for
three chaplains, one of whom served Barrington, and £10 for four
bible-clerks), £1 for the auditor, £6. 6s. 8d. for college servants
(namely, the cook, butler, barber, and laundress), rather more than
£17 for the exequies of benefactors, £1. 13s. 4d. for the
commemoration refection, £20 for repairs, and £6. 6s. 8d. for
extraordinary expenses. A clerical society like Michael-House had no
difficulty in providing for due celebration of the exequies of its
friends, and in fact more than twenty benefactors are mentioned by
name as being thus commemorated every year. In 1544, the House,
presumably with the object of averting its destruction, began to admit
students resident elsewhere in the University, and in a couple of
years no less than forty-eight students matriculated from it; the
number of admissions must have exceeded this, but what was involved in
such cases by admission is uncertain.

A scheme containing a "first plott or proportion" for the new College
was prepared for the king by the Court of Augmentations in London; it
seems certain that this was worked out in collaboration with Redman.
The clerk who drew it up was Thomas Ansill. The College, after its
foundation, recognized its obligation to him in the matter and
presented him to the vicarage of Barford which was and is in its gift.
He preserved a copy of his scheme; this was purchased from his son by
one of the fellows in 1611, and given to the College.

The manuscript of the suggested scheme, to which Mr Bird first called
my attention, is endorsed _Distribucio Collegii_ and headed "the
proporcon diuised for Trinite College." It is undated, but in a later
hand it is added that it was made Anno 37 Hen. 8, and therefore before
22 April 1546. From internal evidence it must have been composed in or
after March in that year, since those who graduated in that Lent term
are described as being of the standing of the degrees then taken. Of
those who graduated afterwards some are described correctly, others
not so: doubtless Redman knew about the standing of the members of
King's Hall and Michael-House, but he may well have made mistakes
about the standing of some of the junior students of other colleges.
If however we accept the endorsement as correct, we may fix the date
of the composition of the plan as being in the early half of April,
1546. This manuscript has not been printed, and I proceed to describe
it.

The object of the compilers of this scheme was to see what income
would be required for the suggested new College, and to arrange how
the income should be used; incidentally it reveals the general
organization proposed. The constitution of the College, the various
offices to be created, and the stipends intended are specified. In
most cases the names of the proposed fellows, scholars, bedesmen, and
servants are given, but generally the allocation of the proposed
principal offices is not indicated and probably had not been then
arranged. The names of the proposed fellows and scholars agree with
those appointed later, though the order is not always the same, but
the provisional list of bedesmen differs from that of those ultimately
nominated.

The _Distribucio_ begins with a statement of the names and suggested
stipends of the master and fellows. The stipend of the master was to
be £100 a year: that of each of the next fifteen fellows (one of those
proposed being a doctor of divinity, ten bachelors of divinity, and
four masters of arts) was to be £10 a year and £1 a year for livery:
that of each of the next twenty-five fellows (twenty-two of those
nominated being masters of arts and three bachelors of arts) was to be
£8 a year; that of each of the next twenty fellows and scholars (seven
of the nominees being bachelors of arts and thirteen junior scholars)
was to be £6. 13s. 4d. a year. The names are given and agree with
those in the letters patent of 19 December.

There was to be a schoolmaster (Richard Harman) who was to have £20 a
year, an usher of grammar (William Boude) who was to have £10 a year,
and provision was made for forty childer grammarians, whose names are
given, each of whom was to have £4 a year. This shows that it was
intended that the foundation should include students in grammar, and
the two teachers specially responsible for them were to be a
schoolmaster and usher.

The question arises whether it was intended to found a grammar-school
connected with the College or whether these grammarians were what we
should call undergraduate scholars or exhibitioners. The former view
is the correct one, for the royal commissioners in May 1549 definitely
asked[11] the College "to surrender the Grammar Schole." This was done
and the school was then absorbed in the College. Probably at that time
the distinction between boys at the grammar-school and junior
undergraduates was not regarded as important--the term grammarian or
grammaticus being commonly used for a junior undergraduate as well as
a school-boy[12]. This indifference to the distinction between the two
classes is illustrated by the fact that of the grammarian school-boys
named in the _Distribucio_, ten were already matriculated members of
the University, nine matriculated from Trinity shortly after its
foundation, and of the others six matriculated in 1548 or 1549 which
is not inconsistent with their having been students of the University
in 1546.

In 1547, the accounts include a particular payment for six boys of the
grammar-school, and wages for one quarter for the schoolmaster and Mr
Boude; thus showing that the school was then being carried on. In
1548, the accounts specify forty-two grammatici, in addition to
certain graduates and dialectici, as being in residence, but in this
year there is no mention of a schoolmaster or an usher though possibly
they may be included among the ten lectors for whom provision is made.
In 1551 the grammatici appear as discipuli, and thenceforth the
grammarians were treated as undergraduate scholars.

The _Distribucio_ next goes on to enumerate seven readers. Three of
these were to be public or university readers, of whom one (John
Maydew) was to read in divinity, one (John Cheke) in Greek, and one
(Thomas Wakefield) in Hebrew, each at £40 a year. The other four were
to be fellows of the College, of whom one (Simon Bridges) was to read
in divinity at £6. 13s. 4d. a year, two in philosophy at £5 a year
each, and one in logic at £5 a year: such stipends to be in addition
to their fellowship emoluments. It would seem that Bridges or Briggs
declined to accept the nomination to a fellowship at Trinity and
accordingly was not appointed to the office. Provision was also made
for two under-readers in logic at £2. 3s. 4d. each. Next are mentioned
two examiners in scholastic acts at £5 a year each; and two chaplains
at £6. 13s. 4d. a year each, one (Henry Man) for the fellows and the
other (unnamed) for the childer and bedesmen. I note that Henry Man
occupied for many years rooms in the Great Court adjoining and on the
west side of what is now known as the Queen's Gate.

The next entry is that of twenty-four almsmen or bedesmen at £6 a year
each; the names of all but one are given, but the list differs
somewhat from that appearing in the account book of 1547 of those
appointed when the College began work. The unnamed bedesman was the
cook of Michael-House, and it is impossible not to wonder whether his
inclusion in this list (which involved his retirement from the
kitchens) was due to the memory of indifferent dinners eaten by Redman
when a guest at the high table of that House.

The _Distribucio_ then returns to the enumeration of the officers and
servants of the College. There were to be two bursars at £4 a year
each; a vice-master at £5 a year; two deans to direct disputations of
divinity and philosophy, one at £4 a year, and the other at £3. 6s.
8d. a year; eight bible-clerks, whose names are given, to serve the
hall, choir and vestry, and to attend upon the curate when visiting,
at £2. 13s. 4d. a year each; an organ-player at £6 a year and his
commons; two butlers, the senior at £5 a year and the junior at £4 a
year; a manciple at £6. 13s. 4d. a year; a master-cook at £6 a year;
two under-cooks, one at £4 a year, and the other at £3. 6s. 8d. a
year; and a turn-spit at £2 a year. There was also to be a barber at
£5 a year; a laundress at £5 a year; a porter at £6 a year; a
bricklayer at £4 a year; a carpenter at £4 a year; a mason at £4 a
year; two stewards of lands at £5 a year each; an auditor for the
lands at £10 a year; a receiver for the lands at £13. 6s. 8d.; and an
attorney in the exchequer for the lands at £3. 6s. 8d. Allowance was
to be made for the yearly distribution of alms to the amount of £20;
and of another £20 to be spent on the mending of highways. The total
expenditure contemplated amounts to £1286. At the end in another
handwriting is added that allowance (amount unspecified) should be
also made for wine and wax, riding, extraordinary charges, and
repairs.

It must have been in April, or early in May, 1546, that the
commissioners, or other officials concerned, took possession of King's
Hall and Michael-House and the ground adjacent thereto. They at once
made arrangements to shut up Foul Lane which ran across the present
Great Court, to purchase such part of that court as did not belong to
King's Hall and Michael-House, and to enclose the site. Stone and
other materials for the new work were taken from the church and
cloisters of the dissolved Franciscan monastery which stood on the
land now occupied by Sidney Sussex College, and in a survey, dated
20 May 1546, those buildings are described as having been already
partially demolished in order to provide "towards the building of the
King's Majesty's new College."

It is probable that during this time members of King's Hall and
Michael-House were in residence, and possibly also some of the
members-elect of Trinity College. The cost of the maintenance of the
House and the expenses of the alterations must have been heavy, but in
December 1546, the Court of Augmentations was ordered[13] "to pay Dr
Redman of your new College in Cambridge £2000 towards the
establishment and building of the same, and in recompense for revenues
of their lands for a whole year ended Michaelmas last, because the
rents were paid to your Majesty's receivers before they had out
letters patent for their donation." We have no record of these
expenses, but I conjecture that this grant allowed a clean start to be
made from Michaelmas 1546.

The members of the new College entered into possession of the
buildings and began their academic life as members of Trinity College
about Michaelmas 1546. The surrender of King's Hall and Michael-House
to the king took place on 28 October, and arrangements were than made
to pension the master and eight fellows of Michael-House and one
fellow of King's Hall. Redman was appointed master of the new
foundation.

The original members of the Society were selected from the whole
University with the addition of a few Oxonians: it is believed that
all the nominees were favourable to the new learning and the
protestant faith. Of the forty childer grammarians named in the
_Distribucio_ all save one accepted the nomination; of these, six had
been previously members of Michael-House, one a member of Pembroke,
one of Peterhouse, one of St John's, and one of some unnamed College.
Of the sixty students nominated to fellowships or scholarships in the
letters patent, fourteen did not reside and presumably refused the
nomination. Of the forty-six who accepted the office, thirty-six were
graduates and ten were non-graduates. Of these thirty-six nominees,
three came from Michael-House, one from King's Hall, two from
Christ's, one from Corpus, one from King's, one from Pembroke, two
from Peterhouse, one from Queens', one from St Catharine's, and three
from St John's: of the colleges or hostels from which the remaining
twenty had graduated, I can find no particulars. Of the ten
non-graduates who accepted the office, one had been at Pembroke, one
at Queens', two at St John's, and one at Trinity Hall: of the previous
history of the remaining five I know nothing. Of the fourteen who did
not reside and presumably declined the offer, eleven were graduates,
of whom one had been at Corpus, one at King's, one at Pembroke, three
at Queens', two at St John's, and two at Oxford, and of the remaining
graduate I can find no particulars. Of the three non-graduates who did
not accept the nomination, one had been at Michael-House, one at
Oxford, and of the other I know nothing. It appears from the
account-books that there were also still in residence a few
students[14] who had been members of King's Hall and Michael-House: it
was only courteous to give these deposed students the hospitality of
the House, and they occupied a different position to the pensioners
and fellow-commoners who later were admitted in considerable numbers.
We cannot prove or disprove the presence at this time of other
students, but it is most likely that at first there were no residents
in College other than those mentioned above.

The legal formalities connected with the surrender of the properties
of King's Hall and Michael-House took a considerable time, and were
not completed till 17 December 1546. The letters patent founding the
College and the charter of dotation were signed a few days later[15].
The actual endowment granted was valued at £1640 net a year, which
must have been deemed ample to provide for the expenses and the
maintenance of the House. Comparing this income and the estimated
expenditure with those of King's Hall and Michael-House we gather how
much more important than these colleges was the contemplated new
foundation.

Thus were King's Hall and Michael-House dissolved, but only to be
merged in a new and nobler Society. The letters patent founding
Trinity College state that Henry to the glory and honour of Almighty
God and the Holy and Undivided Trinity, for the amplification and
establishment of the Christian and true religion, the extirpation of
heresy and false opinion, the increase and continuance of divine
learning and all kinds of godliness, the knowledge of language, the
education of youth in piety virtue discipline and learning, the relief
of the poor and destitute, the prosperity of the Church of Christ, and
the common good and happiness of his kingdom and subjects, founded and
established a College of letters, sciences, philosophy; godliness, and
sacred theology, for all time to endure. These are noble objects, and
we may look back with honourable pride to the way in which Trinity
College has on the whole carried out the intentions of its founder.

The organization of the new College followed closely that outlined in
the _Distribucio_. To meet the expenses already incurred during the
Michaelmas term the Court of Augmentations[16] in January 1547 paid
Redman £590 "towards the exhibition of King's Scholars in Cambridge."
This was about one-third of the total intended income of the House,
and presumably cleared matters up to 24 December 1546, when the
College entered into possession of its endowments. If we may trust the
sermon preached in London on 12 December 1550, by Thomas Lever,
subsequently master of St John's College, Trinity had reason to regret
the death of Henry in January 1547, for the preacher asserted that a
substantial part of the intended endowment was appropriated by
courtiers in London; I have never investigated what part (if any) of
it was thus lost to the College.

The first account-book of the new College covers the civil year 1547,
but only certain selected items of income and expenditure appear
therein. It shows total receipts of £786. 16s. 7d. and total payments
of £799. 11s. 1½d. Most of the income is said to have come from the
"Tower." I conjecture that rents, etc. were paid to the master who
kept the college moneys in the treasury in the Tower, and the bursar
in his book accounted only for such portion of it as was handed to
him: of other sums received or paid on account of the Society, we
have no particulars. In most cases the commons (though not the
stipends or wages) paid to officers are set out, but up to Lady-Day
instead of giving full details there is an entry of £52. 6s. 10d. paid
to fellows and scholars for "the first quarter after the erection,
besides stipends and wages." The account-book for the next year, 1548,
is better kept. It shows total receipts of £531. 13s. 11½d. and total
payments of £528. 12s. 8½d. In the accounts of this year are mentioned
a master, fifty graduate fellows (of whom thirteen were bachelors),
ten dialectici, forty-two grammarians, and eight bible-clerks. Entries
appear of payments for commons to six former members of King's Hall
and Michael-House, but of these only three seem to have been in
regular residence. An examination of the early account-books allows us
to see something of the development of the College, but a description
of this would hardly come within the purview of this paper.


[Footnote 1: _Cambridge Documents_ issued by the Royal Commissioners,
London, 1852, vol. III, pp. 365-410.]

[Footnote 2: This was true some years ago when this paper was written,
but since then I have given part of the story in a booklet on the
King's Scholars and King's Hall which, at the request of the College,
I wrote in 1917 for the meeting held to celebrate the six-hundredth
anniversary of the execution by Edward II of the writ establishing
those scholars in the University of Cambridge.]

[Footnote 3: 37 Henry VIII, cap. 4.]

[Footnote 4: _Correspondence of M. Parker_, Cambridge, 1852, p. 34.]

[Footnote 5: _Life of T. Smith_ by J. Strype, Oxford, 1820,
pp. 29-30.]

[Footnote 6: _State Papers_, Domestic, 1546, vol. XXI, part i, no. 68.
See also J. Lamb's _Documents_, London, 1838, pp. 58-59;
_Correspondence of M. Parker_, Cambridge, 1852, p. 34.]

[Footnote 7: _State Papers_, Domestic, 1546, part i, nos. 203, 204.]

[Footnote 8: _Ecclesiastical Memorials_ by J. Strype, Oxford, 1882,
vol. XI, part i, pp. 207-208; _Correspondence of M. Parker_, p. 36.]

[Footnote 9: _Cambridge Documents_, vol. I, pp. 105-294.]

[Footnote 10: _Correspondence of M. Parker_, pp. 35-36; J. Lamb's
_Documents_, p. 59.]

[Footnote 11: _State Papers_, Domestic, Edward VI, May 1549.]

[Footnote 12: Senior undergraduates were then commonly termed
dialectici.]

[Footnote 13: _State Papers_, Domestic, 1546, no. 647 (25).]

[Footnote 14: Three fellow-commoners had matriculated from King's Hall
in 1544.]

[Footnote 15: The charter of foundation, dated 19 December, and that
of endowment, dated 24 December, are printed at length in the
_Cambridge Documents_, vol. III, pp. 365-410.]

[Footnote 16: C.H. Cooper, _Annals of Cambridge_, Cambridge, 1842,
vol. I, p. 452.]




CHAPTER II.

THE TUTORIAL SYSTEM.


The word Tutor is used at Cambridge to describe an officer of a
College who stands to his pupils in loco parentis; now-a-days he may,
but does not necessarily, give direct instruction to them. The object
of this chapter is to describe the development of the office in
Trinity College.

Trinity College was founded in 1546 by Henry VIII. It is, however,
essential in dealing with its early history to bear in mind that it
was founded in a pre-existing[17] University having well-established
rules and customs. Nearly all the original members of Trinity had been
educated at Cambridge, they were familiar with its traditions, and
even the buildings they occupied were associated with the college life
of earlier times. It was intended that the Society should promote the
reformed religion and the new learning, but there is no reason to
suppose that in establishing it, it was wished or proposed to alter
the existing practice about the tuition, guidance, and care of the
younger students.

In the system in force in the University shortly before the
foundation of Trinity, the students corresponding to our scholars and
sizars lived in endowed colleges (of which eight were founded before
1353 and seven between 1440 and 1520), most of those corresponding to
our pensioners in unendowed private hostels (of which in the sixteenth
century there were twenty-seven and in earlier times possibly a few
more), and most of those belonging to religious orders in monasteries
or monastic hostels. A student on admission to the University was
apprenticed to some master of arts or doctor who directed the lad's
studies until he took a master's degree. This graduate was known as
the student's "master": in the case of a member of a college we may
assume that the master was chosen from among the senior members of the
House, though it is doubtful if this was necessarily so in the case of
the hostels. The head of a college or hostel was responsible for the
conduct and control of the lad in non-scholastic matters, but in
colleges in later times this work was assigned to a dean. Thus for
practical purposes a tutorial system already existed in the medieval
system of apprenticeship and control.

The royal scheme for Trinity College comprised a master, fifteen
senior fellows, twenty-five middle fellows, twenty junior fellows (of
whom, in 1546, thirteen were undergraduates), and forty grammarian
school-boys. In addition to these, there were servant-students (known
as sizars or subsizars), each being attached as gyp to a particular
fellow, and receiving education, board, and lodging in lieu of money
wages. There is nothing to show whether or not the presence of
pensioners was contemplated.

We have a list, apparently complete, of all the intended officers;
tutors do not appear among them, though a schoolmaster and usher were
provided for the grammarians. Hence it would seem that the relation
between an apprenticed undergraduate and his master was regarded as
personal, and that the latter was selected and paid by his pupil or
pupil's guardian, and not by or through the College--I conjecture that
this was the usual medieval practice. The deans are mentioned as
officers of the College, and the discipline of the younger members was
part of their business, though no doubt a lad's master or tutor
assisted in enforcing it. The formal charter of foundation was given
by Henry in December 1546, but the grammarians are not mentioned
therein.

During the next six years, 1546-1552, three important developments
took place. First, the grammar-school side of the College was
abandoned, and all boys then in the school were entered as scholars
of the House; next, and perhaps consequent on the abolition of the
school, a distinction between fellows and scholars was drawn; and
finally, following the growing custom of other colleges, the
admission of pensioners was definitely recognized as desirable, thus
introducing a class of students below the standing of scholars. Before
coming to the subject of tutors it will be well to add a word or two
about the pensioners and scholars of these early days.

With the upset of the medieval scheme of education the number of
pensioners and fellow-commoners seeking admission to the University
greatly decreased, and the reception of a limited number of them in
the colleges fairly met the needs of the University. The private
hostels were then no longer wanted and being unendowed disappeared.
Thus when again, as soon happened, the number of would-be pensioners
increased, it was necessary (unless new non-collegiate arrangements
were made for their reception in the University) to admit them in
larger numbers to the colleges. At Trinity a limit was, in theory,
placed on the number of pensioners admissible, but not on that of
fellow-commoners. A pensioner at Trinity, and I suppose also at other
colleges, had to be qualified by learning and morals for admission,
and I conceive further that his entry was conditional on his finding a
fellow who would receive him. A pensioner or fellow-commoner had no
rights, and resided only on such terms and as long as the College or
the fellow receiving him willed. I believe that students of this class
did not often stay here for more than three or four years unless in
due course they became scholars.

A most important question for the new College was how the supply of
scholars and fellows should be provided. In King's Hall vacancies
were filled by royal nomination, and boys came into residence as
scholars-elect. We do not know what was proposed in 1546, but I think
that, as far as entry to the grammar-school was concerned, nomination
by the senior fellows was the most likely method to have been
contemplated. The abandonment of the school and the enrolment of all
its members as scholars of the House must however have raised the
question in an acute form, and it was settled in or before 1552 by the
establishment of an annual examination for the election of scholars.
Probably from the first it was intended that the new fellows should be
formally elected and admitted.

The charter of 1546 contains a reference to statutes to be given later
by the king. There was considerable delay in preparing these, and the
liberty of action thus left to the Society seems to have been used
unwisely, for the commissioners of 1549 reported that its state was
"much out of order, governed at large and pleasure for want of
statutes ... the fellows for the most part too bad."

In November 1552 the College received the long-expected statutes by
which it was to be governed: with their appearance we leave the field
of conjecture and come to facts. The foundation as here described
included a master, fifty fellows of the standing of master or doctor,
and sixty bachelor and undergraduate scholars: provision was also made
for student-servants or sizars. Vacancies in the roll of scholars were
to be filled by an annual election held at Michaelmas on the result
of a two days' examination. Bachelors of arts and those insane or
suffering from contagious disease (a curious conjunction) were
ineligible: also there could not, at any one time, be more than three
scholars from any one county. The regulation that a bachelor was not
eligible for election to a scholarship suggests that a candidate might
be in residence as an undergraduate, though it does not exclude the
candidature of those who were not already members of the House, but
the custom (if it ever existed) of electing non-residents had died out
before 1560. The admission of pensioners, not exceeding fifty-four in
number, was definitely recognized in 1552: of these the master might
take as his pupils four, and each fellow one. The pensioner which
every fellow might thus receive was in addition to such scholars as
had been assigned to him as pupils, but though scholars had tutors,
the fellow responsible for a pensioner is not explicitly described as
his tutor. It seems that an important part of the duty of a tutor was
to see that all payments due to the college from his pupils were made
punctually. Scholars, unlike pensioners, had definite rights.

The following are some of the regulations:

  Nemo ex discipulis sine tutore in collegio sit, qui fuerit,
  expellatur. Pupilli tutoribus pareant, honorem paternum et
  reverentiam exhibeant, quorum cura consumitur in illis informandis
  et ad pietatem scientiamque instruendis. Tutores fideliter et
  diligenter quae docenda sunt suos doceant, quae agenda instruant et
  admoneant. Omnia pupillorum expensa tutores collegio praestent, et
  singulis mensibus aes debitum pro se et suis quaestoribus solvant.
  Quod ni fecerint, tantisper commeatu priventur dum pecunia
  dissolvatur. Pupillus neque a tutore rejiciatur, neque tutorem suum
  ubi velit mutet nisi legitima de causa a praeside et senatu
  probanda; qui fecerit collegio excludatur.... In discipulis
  eligendis praecipua ratio ingenii et inopiae sit, in quibus ut
  quisque valet maxime ita ceteris proferatur. Eo adjungatur doctrinae
  studium et mediocris jam profectus, et reliqui temporis spes illum
  fore ad communem reipublicae posthac idoneum. Horum studium sit ut
  vitae innocentiam cum doctrinae veritate conjungant, et in veritate
  rerum inquirendi et honestate persequenda laborent.... Sic sint
  grammaticis et studiis humanitatis instituti ut inquisitiones aulae
  sustinere et domesticas exercitationes suscipere possint....
  Pensionarii et studiorum socii in collegium recipiantur ...
  provideatur ut neque praesidi plures quam quatuor neque singulis
  sociis plures uno pensionario sint.

Grave offences were punishable by expulsion, rustication, etc., and
those who committed only "minor offences" were liable to penalties of
extreme severity. Thus we read:

  Quicunque in aliqua parte officii sui negligentior fuerit, et
  aliquem e magistratibus bene admonentem non audiverit, aut
  insolentem se ostenderit, si ephoebus sit verberibus sin ex ephoebis
  excesserit decennali victu careat et uterque praeterea poenitentiam
  declamatione tostetur.

The text is corrupt, but the meaning is clear. A marginal note
suggests the obvious correction that decemdiali should be read for
decennali. The deans superintended, even if they did not inflict,
corporal punishment when it was ordered.

Another code of statutes was drawn up in 1554, but was never sealed,
and thus did not become effective. I need not quote the text which, on
tutorial matters, does not differ materially from that of 1560. The
draft contains a clause to the effect that the master of the College
was not to take more than four pensioners as his pupils, a fellow who
was a master of arts or of some superior degree was not to take more
than two, and no one else was to take a pensioner as a pupil. The word
"two" however has been crossed out and "one" substituted. From this it
would seem that the question of how many pensioners it was desirable
to admit was already a matter of debate.

In 1560 new statutes were granted to the College, and its constitution
as then settled remained practically unaltered till 1861. In this
code the foundation is described as including a master, sixty fellows,
four chaplains, sixty-two scholars, and thirteen sizars or gyps,
namely, three for the master and one for each of the ten senior
fellows. Henceforth scholars were elected annually in the spring, from
undergraduates already in residence. By a gracious provision, whose
disappearance in 1861 I regret, it was ordered that forty of the
scholarships should be specifically associated with the name of
Henry VIII, twenty with that of queen Mary, and two with that of
Thomas Allen as pre-eminent benefactors. Pensioners and subsizars were
also admissible to the Society on conditions. If fellow-commoners
dined at the high table, as seems likely, they may have been reckoned
extra numerum. Every student under the degree of master of arts was
required to have a tutor, thus regularizing the position of
fellow-commoners, pensioners, sizars, and subsizars as members of the
College, and bringing them under the same rule as scholars.

The regulations in point are as follows:

  Est ea quidem ineuntis aetatis imbecillitas ut provectiorum consilio
  et prudentia necessario moderanda sit, et propterea statuimus et
  volumus ut nemo ex baccalaureis, discipulis, pensionariis,
  sisatoribus, et subsisatoribus tutore careat: qui autem caruerit,
  nisi intra quindecim dies unum sibi paraverit, e collegio ejiciatur.
  Pupilli tutoribus pareant, honoremque paternum ac reverentiam
  deferant, quorum studium, labor, et diligentia in illis ad pietatem
  et scientiam informandis ponitur. Tutores sedulo quae docenda sunt
  doceant, quaeque etiam agenda instruant admoneantque. Omnia
  pupillorum expensa tutores collegio praestent, et intra decem dies
  cujusque mensis finiti aes debitum pro se ac suis omnibus senescallo
  solvant. Quod ni fecerint, tantisper commeatu priventur dum pecunia
  a se collegio debita dissolvatur. Cautumque esto ne pupillus
  quispiam vel stipendium suum a thesaurariis recipiat vel rationem
  pro se cum eisdem aliquando ineat, sed utrumque per tutorem semper
  sub poena commeatus menstrui a dicto tutore collegio solvendi fieri
  volumus.... Pensionarios ut studiorum socios in collegium
  recipiendos statuimus; sitque in illis recipiendis ratio morum ac
  doctrinae diligenter habita; magistris artium aut superioris gradus
  unum, baccalaureis autem nullum omnino concedimus. Nemo illorum
  admittatur nisi a decano seniore et primario lectore examinatus.

In time, serious discrepancies between the statutes and the practice
of the College grew up. Some, but not all, of these were removed in
1844, when the statutes were revised. The sentence above quoted
"magistris artium aut superioris gradus unum, baccalaureis autem
nullum omnino concedimus" was then struck out.

In 1861 new statutes were given to the College: these contain no
mention of pensioners, but merely prescribe that no bachelor or
undergraduate shall be without a tutor. The present statutes of 1882
similarly direct that no member of the College in statu pupillari
shall be without a tutor.

Except by accident, we have no record before 1635 of the names of the
tutors of the various students, but it is probable that at first the
master regularly entered some undergraduates as his own pupils:
certainly Whitgift did so, and so too did some of his successors. It
seems most likely also that by 1560 it was already usual for the
master to assign a student to that fellow who was to act as his tutor,
though of course regard must always have been paid to the wishes of a
parent or guardian in this matter. This remained the ordinary custom
for perhaps two hundred years.

Some information on tutorial affairs in the sixteenth century may be
gathered from an account-book kept by Whitgift, covering parts of the
years 1570 to 1576, and containing statements of the charges he made
as tutor: the names of thirty-nine men are given. In the history of
Trinity College which I wrote for my pupils some years ago, I
published a few of these bills. I give here a few details illustrative
of the many matters with which a tutor was then concerned.

The payment made to him as tutor varied in different cases, but 6s.
8d. a quarter for a sizar, 10s. for a pensioner, and 13s. 4d. for a
fellow-commoner were usual sums. In a few cases there are records of
an admission-fee to the College or a fee for entering into commons:
the normal payment for this was 15s. for a pensioner, and 20s. for a
fellow-commoner--there is no mention of any such charge in the case of
a sizar. The cost of the silly ceremony by which the senior
undergraduates initiated a freshman, known as his salting, was charged
in the bills, and varied from 8d. for a sizar and 1s. 4d. for a
pensioner to 4s. for a fellow-commoner. The charge for matriculation
appears to have been 4d. for a sizar, 1s. for a pensioner, and 2s. for
a fellow-commoner.

Of course the cost of the purchase of books comes in most of the
accounts. Aristotle, Plato, Sophocles, and Demosthenes constantly
appear among Greek writers, Homer and Xenophon only once; Cicero,
Caesar, Sallust, and Lucian occur often among the Latin authors, Livy
only once. Euripides and Horace are noticeable by their absence. I
have not observed any mathematical books. Works by Seton and Erasmus
are frequently mentioned. Among English books we have a prayer-book
charged at 1s., a service-book at 1s. 8d., a bible at 9s., and a
testament at 2s. The charge for a bible in Latin was 7s. and for a new
testament in Greek 2s. A Greek grammar cost 1s., 1s. 2d., or 1s. 4d.;
a Hebrew grammar 1s. which seems cheap. Paper was charged 4d. by the
quire and 2s. 6d. by the half-ream: the cost of a bundle of pens and
an inkhorn was usually 4d. or 6d.

Clothes appear to have been expensive, but naturally the cost varied
widely according to the status of the student. Apparently at that time
the wardrobes of men were fairly extensive: the prices of the various
articles are set out in full. I hesitate to distinguish academic gowns
from other robes, but the charge of 4s. to John Waring, a pensioner,
for his gown and square cap, as also the charge of 2s. 6d. for making
a gown and hood for Phillip Harrison, another pensioner, must, I
think, be taken to refer to academic costumes. The cost of a surplice
to Richard Therald, a sizar, was 4s., but to Henry Gates, a
fellow-commoner, was as much as 11s. 7d.

As to amusements, the richer students seem to have kept or hired
horses at considerable cost. Horse-hire to London varied from 4s. to
8s.; to Lincoln from 3s. 6d. to 4s. 8d. Bows and arrows constantly
appear in the bills--the price of a bow ranging from 1s. 4d. to 3s.
Tennis was another popular amusement of the day. The court stood on
the site of the north end of the present library, and the keeper of
the court was regarded as a college servant; there are no charges in
connection with the bats, balls, or use of the court.

It may be interesting to notice that coals were used regularly as well
as wood: they were sold at 1s. 3d. a sack. Candles were charged at
either 3d. or 4d. a pound. Among miscellaneous things 6d. was charged
for an hour-glass; 4d. for a mouse-trap; 10d. for a scabbard for a
rapier; and 10s. for a lute. A set of singing lessons cost 3s. and a
set of dancing lessons 6s.

Sickness appears to have been common. In general we have no record of
the duration of illnesses, and the charges for doctors and chemists
varied widely. The charge for plucking out one tooth seems to have
been 1s. 4d., but for two teeth the dentist reduced his charge to 1s.
a tooth.

We get another aspect of student and tutorial affairs in the next
century (in 1659) contained in a long letter from which I gave
extracts in the history of the College to which I have already
referred. Robert Creighton, pronounced Crickt-on, of Somersetshire, a
Westminster boy and a scholar of the House, was then a candidate for a
fellowship. At the time there were in residence a good many zealots,
introduced into the Society under presbyterian or Cromwellian
auspices, and one of these, a year senior to Creighton, was also a
candidate for a fellowship. Just before the election some of the
scholars were playing tennis in the college court when the ball by
chance struck one of them in the eye. On this Creighton called out "Oh
God, Oh God, the scholar's eye is stroke out," whereon his competitor
accused him to the authorities as a profane person who took God's
name in vain; and as confirmation added that he never came to the
private prayer meetings of the students. By good luck the master was
Wilkins, afterwards bishop of Chester, who owed his appointment more
to the fact that he had married Cromwell's sister than to his devotion
to the doctrines of the Independents. It is clear that he disapproved
of the complaint, but he considered it prudent to summon a meeting of
the seniority to hear the case and examine witnesses. Creighton's
tutor, Duport (who gave us our large silver salt-cellar), spoke up for
his pupil, and thereon the master said that the charge looked like
malice, and it did not matter much if Creighton did neglect to go to
the private prayer meetings of undergraduates since he never failed to
go to chapel and to his tutor's lectures. He then proposed, if we may
trust our authority, that the seniority should at once reject the
informer and his friends, and elect to the vacant fellowships the
accused and his friends, and so it was done. Such were elections then!

It is satisfactory to add that public opinion in the College was
against those who trumped up this ridiculous charge, and on the day
after the election the following notice was found on the screens. "He
that informed against Ds Creighton deserves to have his breech kickt
on." An amusing glimpse of life under the Commonwealth. Note that the
tutor gave lectures to his pupils, and from the tutorial point of
view observe the esteem gained by regular attendance thereat.

No obligation to take pupils seems ever to have been imposed on
fellows, though a pupil once taken could not be transferred. This, and
the fact that scholars were elected only from students already in
residence, made it undesirable to retain any rule to the effect that a
fellow should not have more than one pensioner as a pupil. Hence in
time those who liked tutorial work and did it well were allowed to
have more than one pensioner pupil, and gradually the bulk of the
entries came to be made under a comparatively few tutors.

The average annual entry of students at Trinity during the years 1551
to 1600 was fifty-one, during the years 1601 to 1650 was fifty, and
during the years 1651 to 1700 was thirty-nine. During the years 1701
to 1750, it sank to twenty-seven: this diminution being partly due to
the Bentley scandals. During the years 1751 to 1800 the average annual
entry was thirty-seven, during the years 1801 to 1850 was one hundred
and sixteen, during the years 1851 to 1900 was one hundred and
seventy-four, and during the years 1901 to 1913 was one hundred and
ninety-nine.

Let us see how the men were divided among the tutors. From April to
December 1635, twenty-eight students were admitted who were
distributed among seventeen tutors, of whom eleven had only one pupil
and none had more than four pupils. Taking every tenth year
thenceforward, we find that in 1645, there were (excluding ten fellows
intruded by order of parliament) fifty-seven entries; of these
fifty-one were divided among ten tutors. In 1655, there were
fifty-three normal entries divided among twelve tutors; in 1665,
forty-three entries divided among six tutors; in 1675, forty-nine
entries divided among twelve tutors; in 1685, thirty-four entries
divided among five tutors; and in 1695, twenty-eight entries divided
among four tutors. In 1705, there were twenty-nine entries, of these
twenty-eight students were divided among three tutors. In 1715, there
were fourteen entries divided among six tutors; in 1725, thirty-four
entries divided among twelve tutors; in 1735, twenty-eight entries
divided among six tutors; and in 1745, twenty-one entries divided
among eight tutors.

In 1755 there were only two fellows acting as tutors, namely
S. Whisson and J. Backhouse. Thenceforth there were definite tutorial
"sides," each under one tutor or joint tutors, a tutor being appointed
to a side when a vacancy occurred; and every admission to the College
being made on a designated side. In effect the work of a tutor was now
regarded as being of a character which should occupy a man's whole
energies, and it was generally held that a tutor, while he held
office, had not, and ought not to have, leisure during term-time for
independent work. From 1755 to 1822 there were two sides. In 1822 a
third side was created. In 1872 one of the sides (being the lineal
successor of Backhouse's side) was divided into two. These four sides
are to-day designated in the college office by the letters _A_, _B_,
_C_, _D_; side _A_ being that created in 1822, sides _B_ and _D_ being
the two made out of the successor of Backhouse's side, and side _C_
being the lineal successor of Whisson's side. [In the pre-war days of
1914 side _A_ was under Dr Barnes, side _B_ under Mr Laurence, side
_C_ under Mr Whetham, and side _D_ under Dr Fletcher.]

Proceeding by decades in the same way as before, the entries on each
of the two sides (denoted by _C_ and _BD_) which existed from 1755 to
1822 were in 1755, nineteen and ten; in 1765, four and six; in 1775,
twenty-one and twenty-four; in 1785, eighteen and twenty-nine; in
1795, twenty-nine and seventeen; in 1805, forty-two and twenty-six;
and in 1815, fifty-one and thirty-six. From 1822 to 1872 there were
three sides (denoted by _C_, _BD_, _A_): the normal entries on these
were in 1825, forty-two, fifty-five, forty-one; in 1835, forty,
forty-five, fifty-three; in 1845, fifty, sixty-eight, forty-nine; in
1855, fifty-three, forty-eight, fifty; and in 1865, fifty-eight,
nineteen, sixty. Since 1872 there have been four sides (denoted by
_C_, _B_, _D_, _A_) which were made approximately equal: the normal
entries on these were in 1875, forty-one, forty, forty-four, forty; in
1885, forty-nine, forty-four, forty-five, forty-eight; in 1895,
forty-eight, thirty-eight, fifty, fifty-one; and in 1905, fifty,
fifty-three, fifty, fifty-seven.

Until 1755 the number of pupils in residence in any one term assigned
to an individual tutor was not large, and a tutor interested in any
particular aspect of a subject likely to be studied was generally
available: hence it was usually possible for a tutor to give
personally the teaching and guidance required by his pupils. There
were then no lecture-rooms in College, so probably all instruction was
given in the tutor's rooms and was informal in character. With the
establishment in 1755 of sides, this system of teaching required
modification, and in the course of the latter half of the eighteenth
century it became the custom for a tutor to supplement his teaching by
the services of another fellow or other fellows. These officers, known
as Assistant-Tutors, were appointed and paid by individual tutors;
they lectured regularly, took an important part in the life of the
Society, and occupied a recognized position.

A marked development of the system of formal lectures is indicated by
the erection in 1835 of a block of four large and four medium-sized
lecture-rooms. No other important changes were made for another thirty
years, and until 1868 instruction remained normally organized by
sides; indeed it was only by arrangement that lectures on one side
were open to men on the other sides, though in fairness it must be
added that an arrangement for throwing them open was made as a matter
of course whenever it seemed desirable. The retention to so late a
date of appointments by sides was due to the fact that the finances of
the four sides were then kept as separate accounts.

This scheme, clumsy and illogical though it was, might have worked
fairly well as long as the great majority of honour men read nothing
but mathematics, classics, and perhaps theology, but it was condemned
by the fact that the authorities allowed it to be superseded in
practice by an elaborate system of private tuition paid for by the
individual students. With the introduction of new subjects (like law,
history, and various branches of science) and the development of the
corresponding triposes, it became necessary to recast the scheme of
teaching if adequate college instruction on such subjects was to be
provided. The earliest appointment of a college lecturer (as
contrasted with an assistant-tutor nominally attached to a particular
side) was made in 1868, his lectures being open to all students of
the Society, and his stipend not charged on the funds of a particular
side. This was soon followed by the placing of all educational
appointments and finance in the hands of the College without regard to
sides; and shortly afterwards the lecture-room accommodation was
considerably extended.

About this time a further step was taken by throwing most of the
advanced lectures open to members of other colleges. Thus in a few
years instruction by tutorial sides was replaced by college lectures
and class-work, and then this, to a large extent, by teaching
organized on a university basis, supplemented by individual and
catechetical instruction in college: with this, the custom of using
private tuition has largely disappeared. Ultimately the title of
assistant-tutor was dropped; the last appointment under that title was
made in 1885, but from about 1870 we may say that practically the
duties of an assistant-tutor were those of a lecturer. Thenceforth
tutors also took their share of lecturing on subjects connected with
their own lines of study, and did not confine their instruction to
their own pupils, though for a year or two lectures on elementary
mathematics and classics to freshmen on each particular side survived
as a historic curiosity. These changes led to the existing scheme
under which tutorial and tuition duties are separated, and thus the
giving of direct instruction to his pupils is not now necessarily
part of the duties of a tutor.

The sequence of tutors on each side has been published, and I am
sorely tempted to add various anecdotes on the way in which some of
these officers fulfilled their duties, but such additions lie outside
the object of this essay.

Of course during this long period there have been bad as well as good
tutors, but I think everyone will admit that on the whole the system
has worked well. Its special characteristic is a personal relation
between the tutor and the pupil, materially strengthened by constant
intercourse and by the fact that practically all the correspondence
with the parents of the pupil passes through the hands of the tutor:
experience shows that the tutorial influence has not been weakened by
the fact that in most cases direct instruction is now given by other
lecturers.


[Footnote 17: The history of the University prior to 1546 covers some
three centuries and a half, that is, about as long a period as has
elapsed since 1546.]




CHAPTER III.

THE WESTMINSTER SCHOLARS.


The relations between Trinity College and Westminster School have
always been of an intimate character. Under the Elizabethan statutes
of the two foundations a limited number of boys from the school were
entitled, if duly qualified, to election to scholarships at Trinity,
and later an attempt was made to extend the privilege to fellowships.
The whole matter is now one of ancient history, but it may be
interesting to put on record some of the facts connected with it.

The school at Westminster owes its foundation to queen Elizabeth. Of
course the abbey is many centuries older, and in a sense so is the
school, for a grammar-school (in addition to the choir-school) had
been attached to the medieval monastery, though doubtless it existed
only at the pleasure of the monks. When Henry VIII created the diocese
of Westminster with the former abbey as its cathedral, he also
established a school connected with it. The diocese soon disappeared,
and later the church and buildings were given by queen Mary to the
Benedictines. The arrangement made by Mary was in turn annulled by
Elizabeth, who, shortly after her succession founded the collegiate
Church of St Peter, divided into two branches, one ecclesiastical and
the other scholastic, the whole being placed under the rule of the
dean and chapter. Thus Elizabeth is rightly designated as the founder
of the present school, though a link with the past has been preserved
in the fact that the sequence of headmasters dates by custom from
1540. The buildings were divided between the two sides of the College;
for the scholastic side, one part of the monastic dormitory was made
into a school-room, the granary was turned into a school dormitory,
and the boys were allowed the use of the refectory for meals.

The queen interested herself in the school she had established; its
connection with particular colleges at the universities was suggested
by the precedents of Winchester and Eton, and it was natural that she
should desire to associate it closely with the Houses at Cambridge and
Oxford which had been founded by her father. There is some reason to
think that the details of the arrangement made were due to Bill, the
first dean of Westminster, who was at the same time master of Trinity
and provost of Eton; a fortunate pluralist!

On 29 March 1560, Elizabeth gave new statutes to Trinity College,
Cambridge, and in statute 13, dealing with the sixty-two scholars of
the College, she directed as follows:

  Sumantur autem potissimum et eligantur ex eorum numero, si modo
  idonei et ceteris pares reperiantur qui Schola Regia Westmonasterii
  educati ... sint.... Ex aliis regni partibus ac locis indifferenter
  ad numerum supplendum qui maxime idonei videbuntur, semper sumantur.

In June 1560, she gave statutes to the Collegiate Church at
Westminster, and in statute 6, dealing with the forty scholars of the
school, she directed that three scholars from the school should be
elected annually to the foundation of Christ Church, Oxford, and three
to that of Trinity College, Cambridge. It is said that the queen did
not ratify these statutes. Be this as it may, in the following year,
on 11 June 1561, she sent to Trinity College letters patent referring
to the Westminster statutes as indicating her wishes in the matter,
and expressing her desire that the Society should select as many
scholars from Westminster as was possible. This then was the position
in 1561, and it was recognised these letters were binding and
conferred rights on duly qualified Westminster scholars.

Throughout the three centuries of the existence of these rights,
candidates usually preferred the Christ Church studentships, which,
being tenable under certain conditions for life, were much more
valuable than Trinity scholarships, since the latter ran out in less
than seven years. Perhaps too the boys were attracted to Christ Church
rather than to Trinity by the fact that there they formed a larger
proportion of the whole Society than in Henry's foundation by the Cam.
Further a boy elected to Christ Church entered sooner into the
emoluments of his studentship than a boy elected to Trinity--the
latter not being admitted to his scholarship until the next annual
election of scholars which took place in the following spring, usually
some six months after he had commenced residence.

There were only forty scholars at Westminster and a provision for the
election from them every year of six scholars to the two universities
was more than ample. Thus in 1561 one scholar was elected to each
university, during each of the six following years, 1562-67, two
scholars were elected to each university, in 1568, six scholars were
for the first time presented, and each university took three. In 1569
the school again presented three boys for election at Trinity, but the
master, Whitgift, refused to elect more than two, alleging that there
were not vacancies in the House for more than that number. Thereon the
scholar or his friends appealed to Sir William Cecil, the chancellor
of the University. Correspondence ensued, but the Society refused to
give way on the particular election. On the general question the
College addressed a letter[18], dated 3 July 1569, to Cecil
entreating him to interpose with the queen to lighten the burden
imposed on Trinity by the royal statutes, and asserting that the
Westminster scholars took up so many places as to act to the detriment
of other and more worthy students. The crown assented to this
proposal, and it was agreed that thenceforth three scholars should be
chosen every third year, and not necessarily more than two in the
other years.

This arrangement lasted but a short time, for a year or two later,
perhaps in 1575, Goodman, dean of Westminster, petitioned[19] the lord
treasurer to confirm or re-enact the original statutes whereby three
Westminster scholars were to be elected each year to each of the two
universities. The petition was granted, and, I conjecture, was the
occasion of the letters patent sent by the queen on 7 February 1576,
to Trinity College, Cambridge, and Christ Church, Oxford, wherein she
repeated and explained her former injunctions. In these letters she
stated that Westminster scholars were not to be allowed to remain at
the school after attaining the age of eighteen, and in regard to their
coming to one of the universities she directed:

  Quamvis cupimus plurimos e nostris Discipulis Westmonasterii ad
  Academias in dicta Collegia quotannis promoveri, tamen ne incertus
  sit omnino numerus, sex ad minimum, videlicet, tres in Ecclesiam
  Christi Oxonii et tres in Collegium Trinitatis, singulis annis, si
  aut tot loca vacua ... aut tot idonei e nostris Discipulis
  Westmonasterii reperti fuerint, admitti volumus; Plures autem
  optamus, si ita praefatis Electoribus commodum videbitur.

In fact, however, the former custom of electing three scholars every
third year and two scholars in each of the other years continued until
1588 after which it became usual, though the custom was not
invariable, to elect at least three scholars to each university each
year. During the forty-seven years from 1561 to 1607 inclusive, one
hundred and thirteen scholars in all were elected from Westminster to
Trinity, of whom forty became fellows.

In 1603 James I came to the throne. He interested himself in the
school and was prepared to intervene in its interests or what he
regarded as such. The earliest case of difficulty in the new reign
occurred at the election in 1604 when the king directed the master of
Trinity, Nevile, to whom in fact he was under some obligations, to
take a boy, by name Albert Moreton, as one of the scholars of
Trinity[20]. The boy was ignorant, and Nevile politely but definitely
refused to accept him. The matter was not urged further, and though on
some occasions later the Trinity electors consented under pressure to
alter the order in which candidates were elected, their right to
reject on the ground of ignorance was not again disputed. Three years
later, the College was faced by a more serious question concerning its
connection with Westminster.

In 1607, James I addressed letters patent to Trinity College, in which
after referring to the letters patent already mentioned, he ordered
them to be strictly observed, and intimated that thereafter the
scholars of Trinity should be taken chiefly from Westminster school if
duly qualified. He then continued that he observed that the scholars
who had been elected to Christ Church were notable for their learning
and subsequent distinction, and regretted that this was not so in the
case of the scholars elected to Trinity, a fact which he attributed to
their want of succession to fellowships and to their leaving the
University as soon as they had taken the degree of master. Accordingly
he ordered that Westminster scholars at Trinity who had taken the
bachelor's degree should, unless deficient in learning or good
conduct, be promoted to fellowships in preference to other candidates.
He further ordered that any Westminster scholar in the College, who
had not been admitted to a fellowship before taking a master's degree,
might remain resident an additional two years during which time he
should be eligible to a fellowship, subject to lawful exceptions. The
letters are dated 27 June 1607, but it would appear that they were not
presented until September of that year.

Deep resentment was felt at this order, for Trinity attached great
importance to the desirability of electing as fellows the best
candidates, though it was admitted that candidates from places where
the House had property had statutable claims for special
consideration. The College took immediate steps to protect itself, and
in support of its position addressed to the chancellor of the
University, the earl of Salisbury, a petition accompanied by a
reasoned memorandum. These documents are not dated, but I think may be
assigned to the Michaelmas term, 1607.

The petition is briefly to beg the chancellor to assist the College in
obtaining a review of the letters patent with the object of
maintaining its ancient privileges and former liberties; the letters
patent being said to be contrary to the intentions of its founder, and
to its statutes[21]. The wording is humble and courtly.

The memorandum that accompanied the petition is more outspoken. It is
long, but it is so interesting that I shall venture to quote from or
describe it at length. I conjecture that it was composed by Nevile.
It contains fourteen assertions or arguments to the following effect:

  1. It is inconvenient that so large a College as Trinity should be
  restrained unto a particular School, and it can be easily shown that
  other Schools have furnished Trinity with students of much better
  hope and proof than Westminster hath done or is likely to do, for
  the whole number of Westminster boys who are eligible to both
  Universities are but forty, and there are seldom more than eight or
  nine candidates for the six vacancies at the two Universities.

  2. To alter or subvert the ancient liberties of one of the chiefest
  Colleges in Christendom and to divert from the uses intended by his
  Majesty's Predecessors a foundation like Trinity in order to satisfy
  private humour or under the pretence of benefitting an ordinary
  School is a great indignity to his Majesty's Sacred Person, Power,
  and Prerogative.

  3. The suggestion that boys coming to Trinity do not become Fellows,
  Doctors, Deans, and Bishops as do boys entering Christ Church is
  untrue, frivolous, and unfair: it is untrue, because, in fact, of
  the existing sixty Fellows of the College, more than one-sixth have
  come from Westminster, and at Trinity the custom is to prefer the
  worthy: it is frivolous, for the fact of a man having once been at
  school at Westminster is not the cause of his advancement to the
  position of a Doctor, Dean, or Bishop: and it is unfair, "for
  although Christ Church in Oxford be a most magnificent and royal
  foundation, and hath bred in all ages as learned, wise, and worthy
  prelates as the kingdom hath, yet Trinity College in Cambridge hath
  had no less royal founders, and if we fail in our Westminster brood
  (as otherwise I hope we do not) either the defect hath been in
  themselves or else (which rather we suppose) it may be imputed to
  those good means the other College hath, being also a Cathedral
  Church and having Cannons both richly beneficed and highly dignified
  which doth enable them to Doctorships, Deaneries, and Bishopricks--a
  great blessing of God that our poor College wanteth."

  4. "Howbeit in that kind of fruitfulness we also are not destitute
  of God's gracious blessing; for ... besides Doctors in all faculties
  to the number at the least of sixty, Deans to the number of eleven,
  Publick Professors to the number of ten, the two Archbishops,
  Canterbury and York, the most Reverend Fathers Whitgift and Hutton,
  and seven other principal Prelates of this kingdom, namely, Fletcher
  of London, Still of Bath and Wells, Babington of Worcester, Redman
  of Norwich, Rud of St Davids, Bennet of Hereford, and Gouldesborough
  of Gloucester, all of them simul et semel Bishops of this kingdom
  ... are such a demonstrative instance as we think no other College
  in either University can afford the like--and not one of these
  chosen out of Westminster School."

  5. "It is to be doubted whether there can be the like success if our
  Elections out of a private School shall be indubitate and certain;
  we rather think there can be no readier means to make Droanes and
  Loyterers in Colleges, nor any worse prejudice or more deadly bane
  unto learning and vertue, then when the rewards, and means thereof
  are tyed to persons, times, and places, and made regular and
  certain."

  6. The proposal would do a grave injustice to other students who
  might be men of great abilities.

  7. The proposal would defeat the express wishes of Henry VIII,
  Edward VI, Mary, and Elizabeth, all of whom are to be reckoned as
  founders as well as benefactors of Trinity College.

  8 and 9. The proposal would be contrary to the existing statutes of
  the College, and to the oaths taken by the Master and Fellows on
  admission.

  10. Preferences of this character are injurious to the particular
  School, the College, and the whole University, and a constant source
  of discord and contention.

  11. "It is also against the Policy and common-wealth of a kingdom to
  restrain and abridge places and preferments originally meant,
  founded, and hitherto with good success employed for the common
  benefit of that kingdom to a private School: for benefits and
  privileges are to be amplified and not restrained; publick rewards
  are not to be applied to private places, purposes, or respects."

  12. Interference with the intentions and directions, of previous
  benefactors is contrary to public policy, and tends to prevent
  future benefactions.

  13. This implies that Nevile had accepted the office of master of
  Trinity College under promises which rendered it inequitable that
  the college statutes should, during his tenure of the post, be
  altered against his wishes, but it is stated that this argument,
  though noted, is not to be pressed.

  14. This raises some technical points, especially as to whether
  statutes of a College given under the great seal can be varied by
  letters patent without explicit reference to the clauses altered or
  repealed.

  The memorandum concludes with a request that the College may have
  liberty to ask the opinion of the Judges on the questions raised,
  and thus obtain the benefit of the king's "most equal just and
  princely laws."

The use of the personal pronoun in one or two cases and the reference
in the thirteenth paragraph to Nevile suggest that the document was
composed by him. I cannot find out anything about the result of the
petition, but I conjecture that nothing came of it. Nevile however was
not inclined to let the matter rest, and no doubt the esteem felt for
him at court and his personal popularity were of great assistance to
the Society in the negotiations that followed.

It was a few months later, in May 1608, at the annual election of
scholars at Westminster that Nevile took the next step in defence of
the college position. The following account of the election is based
on a paper preserved at Westminster:

  The Master of Trinity College (Nevile) refused to take the oath
  which was required, previously to the election, by the Law of the
  land as well as by the local Statutes. He also refused to elect to
  his College the three Scholars ordered by the Letters Patent of the
  Crown. The oath however was taken by the Dean of Westminster (Neile)
  and the Dean of Christ Church (King), as well as by their
  assistants, and by the Master of the School (Ireland). The Dean of
  Westminster then demanded, in writing, that the election should
  proceed; when the Master of Trinity College referred to some
  composition by which he stated he would be governed. To this the
  Dean of Westminster replied, that he knew of no such composition,
  and that, if it had existed, it was necessarily set aside by the
  Letters Patent of Queen Elizabeth and of His Majesty; whereon the
  Master of Trinity College observed, though with much protestation of
  his loyalty, that he did not allow the validity of the Letters
  Patent.

  The other Electors, however, having agreed to proceed, the nine
  Scholars who had been examined were called in to hear the Statute
  read for the election to the two Colleges. The Master of Trinity
  then said that he had not places enough vacant in his College. [In
  fact in April he and the Seniority had filled up all scholarships
  then vacant and pre-elected men to succeed to scholarships as
  vacancies occurred.] To this it was replied, that the want of
  vacancies had been occasioned by pre-elections of supernumerary
  Scholars, that the words of the Statute were disjunctive, and there
  was a clause commanding such Scholars to be received if they were
  fit. The Master of Trinity College did not deny the fitness of the
  candidates, but still refused to elect. In this wrangling the whole
  morning was wasted.

  At length they went to dinner. After this, a fear having been
  expressed, that this "distraction" might become troublesome to their
  friends, "perhaps to His Majesty," and "not without some obloquy" to
  themselves, the Master of Trinity College proposed a private
  settlement, naming October for it. The suggestion was favourably
  received by the Electors other than the Dean of Westminster. The
  latter however affirmed, that with his consent less than three
  Scholars should never be taken by Trinity College and three by
  Christ Church if the School produced so many fit Scholars: and as to
  that part of the Letters Patent, which related to the election of
  Westminster Scholars at Trinity College to Fellowships, he required
  that they should be taken in preference to others, if their
  qualifications were equal; stating at the same time, that the clause
  declaring them eligible to Fellowships two years after their degree
  of A.M. had arisen solely from the practice of pre-electing so many
  Fellows, that for three or four years together no election took
  place; and the Westminster Scholars at Trinity College were driven
  out to seek a better fortune elsewhere. The Master of Trinity
  College allowed that the practice of pre-elections was wrong; and it
  was at length agreed that if this were discontinued, that part of
  the King's Letters concerning the eligibility of Westminster
  Scholars two years after their degree of A.M. should not be urged
  against the local statute of Trinity College, _De Gradibus
  Suscipiendis_. Thereupon the Master of Trinity College took for his
  College as Scholars three candidates, to wit, Hacket, Shirley, and
  Herbert.

The three scholars so taken obtained fellowships in due course, Hacket
became chaplain to James I, Charles I, and later to Charles II,
suffered cruel persecution under the commonwealth, and at the
restoration was made bishop of Lichfield: the Bishop's Hostel was
erected at his cost. An incident in Shirley's career is chronicled
below (see p. 223). Herbert was the well-known poet and divine. If the
above account is reliable, and there is no reason to doubt its
accuracy, the most important question in dispute, namely the
preferential right of Westminsters to election to fellowships at
Trinity, was left open. Nevile however had no intention to allow the
matter to drop, and having made his protest at Westminster, he now
secured the good services of his friend and Cambridge contemporary,
Richard Bancroft, archbishop of Canterbury, who undertook to act as
mediator in drawing up a "friendly and full" settlement of the
question.

An agreement, drafted I feel confident by Nevile, was submitted to the
archbishop and, after he had made a few alterations, was accepted by
the dean and chapter of Westminster. The seniority of Trinity College,
on 5 September 1608, passed a minute that the matter "be referred to
our Master against the 13^th of October," and the deed is so dated,
but its execution must have been delayed since there is a minute of
the seniority, 8 December 1608, ordering that the composition with
Westminster should be engrossed and sealed at the audit so as to be
delivered before 1 February 1609.

The deed embodying this agreement was made between the dean and
chapter of Westminster and Trinity College, and provided that the
College should take yearly three scholars from Westminster School to
be scholars of the College, and that there should be no pre-elections
of supernumerary fellows to the prejudice of the Westminster scholars
if deserving of fellowships. In consideration of these definite
obligations the dean and chapter of Westminster agreed that the
letters patent of 1607 should never be urged against the College by
the dean and chapter or the schoolmaster or ushers or scholars of
Westminster, and that the College should have such full power to elect
fellows as had been previously enjoyed, excepting only the practice of
pre-elections. To the deed is appended a statement that it was made
with the privity and approbation of the archbishop of Canterbury, the
earl of Salisbury (lord high treasurer of England and chancellor of
the University of Cambridge), and of the earl of Northampton (the lord
privy seal), all of whom signed it. This conclusion of the affair may
be regarded as a personal triumph for Nevile.

The arrangement was submitted to the king who in a letter directed to
the College approved it, but required that the Westminster scholars
each year should be granted seniority over other scholars of Trinity
of their year and not be hindered by pre-elections: he did not however
withdraw or rescind the previous letters patent. I have never seen the
text of this letter but its contents are indisputable, and there are
various subsequent references to it. The obligation to allow this
seniority to the Westminster scholars was henceforth recognized by the
College as binding on it.

The advisers of Trinity seem to have been doubtful whether it would be
admitted that this second letter implied the rescission of the letters
of 1607, and since there was every reason to avoid raising the
question whether royal letters or mandates could be set aside or
modified by private arrangements, it was wise to let matters run on as
long as the agreement of 1608 was carried out by the school
authorities. There is however a memorandum, ascribed to January 1610
in the State Papers, showing that "the recent grant by the King for
the students of Trinity College, Cambridge, to be chosen from the
Westminster scholars is prejudicial to the interests of Trinity,"
which seems to imply that further negotiations took place. I have not
seen the memorandum and know nothing more about this than here
appears.

During the sixteen years following this settlement, that is, from 1608
to 1623 inclusive, fifty-eight scholars were elected from Westminster
to Trinity, of whom sixteen became fellows.

In 1623-24 a fresh dispute occurred. It would appear that while
Trinity carried out its undertaking relating to the election of
scholars from Westminster, it again began to pre-elect fellows with
the object, it was said, of preventing any claim being made on behalf
of the Westminster scholars in residence. Whether this was done in
self-protection against unjustifiable claims or was a deliberate
breach of the agreement of 1608 we do not know. An appeal to the crown
on behalf of the school ensued, and on 7 September 1623, the king sent
letters patent to the College as follows:

  Trusty and well beloved we greet you well. Being much interested in
  the prosperity and well-fare of that our College which is both our
  immediate Foundation and the fairest in all our kingdoms, and
  furnished, for the most part with the extracions of our own
  free-school at Westminster, we cannot but be very sensible of any
  alteration in the government of the same.

  Whereas therefore we are given to understand that younger students
  of that College have of late years been totally disheartened in
  their studies by a new and unwarrantable device of pre-electing more
  Fellows than there are places vacant at the time of that Election
  and the Scholars of our own School (in whose loyalty and affection
  we are so much interested from their cradles) strangely discouraged
  and disgraced by being cast in their seniority behind all the
  Scholars and Fellows in their several Elections though never so
  exceeding in learning and education, we straightly will and require
  you that from this time forward ye do forbear all manner of
  pre-elections whatsoever as the pest and bane of all learning and
  succession; and that also you bear that regard and respect to the
  Scholars of that our own Royal School in giving them in all such
  elections respect and precedency which we are informed they fully
  deserve before all other of what country soever. Lastly, whereas we
  are given to understand that heretofore a corrupt custom hath crept
  into that our College of turning elections into particular
  nominations of the Master and the several Seniors which smells
  altogether of partialitie and corruption we do straightly will and
  require you the said Master of our College of whom we conceive a
  very good opinion, to see that hereafter all elections as well of
  Scholars as of Fellows be done according to the local statutes of
  your College and carried about with that pluralitie of voices
  therein required.

What reply (if any) the College made or could make I do not know, but
presumably the answer was not satisfactory as these letters were
followed by the appointment of royal commissioners to enquire into the
Westminster elections. There is extant a letter from the master of
Trinity (Richardson) dated 9 June 1624, to one of the commissioners,
asking to be excused from attending the usual election of Westminster
scholars, on account of poor health. Probably this was regarded as an
impertinence, and he must have been reprimanded since we have a letter
dated 26 June signed by the master and six of the senior fellows,
deprecating the royal displeasure, offering the most humble
submission, promising to obey in anything that his majesty might
command, but begging that present compliance might not be drawn into
an example against the College. Richardson and James I died in March
1625, and the enquiry seems to have been then dropped.

The election in 1636 was interesting. It is said that among the
candidates was Cowley who had already written various poems and a
comedy showing distinct ability. The story runs that the boy failed
badly in grammar, and the Trinity electors, insisting that this was
conclusive, rejected him as a Westminster scholar, but offered him an
ordinary scholarship at Trinity, which he accepted. Against this are
the fact that he had been entered at Trinity as a pensioner in April,
a few weeks before the election at Westminster, and the improbability
that the electors would have drawn such a distinction between
Westminster and other scholars of the House. Still old-time anecdotes
are not to be lightly rejected: at any rate Cowley came into residence
in due course and was made a scholar in the same term as the four boys
taken from Westminster by the electors, these five students being the
only scholars elected by the College in 1637.

During the seventy-seven years from 1624 to 1700 inclusive, three
hundred and fifty-six scholars were elected from Westminster to
Trinity, of whom one hundred and twenty-six became fellows. During the
fifty years, 1701 to 1750, out of one hundred and eighty-seven
Westminster scholars at Trinity sixty-two became fellows; during the
fifty years, 1751 to 1800, out of one hundred and eighty, thirty
became fellows; and during the fifty-six years, 1801 to 1856, out of
one hundred and seventy, four became fellows. Throughout this long
period the friendly relations between the College and the school
suffered no change.

In 1727 there was a curious echo of the controversy of 1607. A strange
suggestion had been made, apparently with the tacit approval of the
authorities of Westminster, that new statutes should be given to
Trinity constituting the dean and chapter of Westminster Visitors of
the College, and it was decided by the advocates of the movement to
open the campaign by asking the dean of Westminster to call the
attention of the master of Trinity (Bentley), to the "Letters Anno
Quinto Jacobi Primi." Bentley replied on 5 March 1727, denied their
validity and argued that even if originally valid, they could not be
pressed after more than a century during which time "they had never
been acted upon": he added that, if antiquated letters were still
binding, there were various matters in which he had powers, whose
exercise might prove singularly inconvenient to those who had raised
the question. This was really conclusive, but further consideration
had shown the inherent weakness or folly of the original idea, and the
chapter was wise enough to proceed no further with the matter.

Shortly afterwards, probably at the following election at Westminster,
Bentley is said to have referred to the dean's communication, and
remarked that the authority of the letters of 1607 would doubtless
have seemed stronger, at any rate to the dean's predecessor
(Atterbury), if not to the chapter, could they have been described as
"Anno Primo Jacobi Tertii"--an irrelevant remark, but it carried a
sting, for Atterbury's devotion to the cause of the Pretender was
deeply resented by the government.

From an unknown date until the early years of the nineteenth century,
Westminster scholars at Trinity were allowed the privilege of wearing
academic gowns of a cut different from those of other undergraduates
and further distinguished by having on the sleeves a violet button
with a silk loop. The gowns of all pensioners in the University were
then black and (except for those worn by Westminsters) cut to a
common pattern. The Westminster distinction was discontinued when the
present system of different gowns for different Colleges was
introduced.

During the first half of the nineteenth century the numbers in the
school fell seriously, and well-founded complaints were made about the
standard of scholarship attained by the scholars elected to the
universities. In 1856, as the result of negotiations, initiated by
Whewell, the arrangements with Trinity were completely recast, and it
was agreed on 5 December 1856 that the school should abandon the right
of Westminster boys to election to scholarships at Trinity, and that
in filling up open emoluments in Trinity, former Westminster boys
should enjoy no preference. In consideration of this release, the
Society undertook to establish at its own cost, exhibitions, not more
than three to be awarded each year, for boys elected from the school
who were otherwise qualified for admission to the College; every such
exhibitioner, if so deserving, to be eligible for a college
scholarship tenable with the exhibition. This was approved by the
queen in council on 25 June 1857. It was further agreed that the
Westminster exhibitioners were to be placed on the same footing as
exhibitioners elected by open competition before commencing
residence. The mode of election is settled by the school statutes, but
it would seem that the Trinity electors have no right to demand
intellectual attainments beyond those required at the time for
admission to the College. The exhibitions are not now confined to
scholars of the school.

So ends the story of Westminster Scholars at Trinity College,
Cambridge. During the two hundred and ninety-six years from 1561 to
1856 inclusive, one thousand and sixty-four scholars had been elected
from Westminster to Trinity (or say 3.6 a year), of whom two hundred
and seventy-eight (or say one in four) had become fellows. In
conclusion I may add that in 1869 in virtue of the powers given by the
Public Schools Act, 1868, the dean and chapter of Westminster, the
dean of Christ Church, Oxford, and the master of Trinity College,
Cambridge, created a new Governing Body in whom the governance of the
school has been since vested.


[Footnote 18: See _Life of Whitgift_ by J. Strype, London, 1718,
pp. 13, 14 and Appendix, pp. 7, 8.]

[Footnote 19: _Life of Whitgift_ by J. Strype, London, 1718, Appendix,
p. 9.]

[Footnote 20: _State Papers_, Domestic, 1604, p. 185.]

[Footnote 21: According to Dean Peacock, royal letters and orders, at
variance with college statutes, were binding only if explicitly or
tacitly accepted by the Society. That may have been technically
correct, but it is very doubtful if Tudor or Stuart sovereigns would
have admitted it.]




CHAPTER IV.

THE SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY
TO UNDERGRADUATES.


This is an account of a famous struggle some eighty years ago between
the authorities and the undergraduates of Trinity College on the
subject of attendance at chapel. The story is not to the credit of the
authorities, but, for what it is worth, here it is.

There is a prelude to it concerned with a controversy in 1834 between
Thirlwall, later the statesman-bishop of St David's, and Wordsworth,
then master of the House, which raised the question of the
advisability of compelling undergraduates to be present at religious
services in College. At that time regular attendance at chapel was
required--as for centuries previously it had been--from all students
as a matter of discipline, and the rule in force on the subject was
embodied in a college order of 22 April 1824, as follows:

  Agreed by the Master and Seniors that every Undergraduate not having
  an aegrotat or dormiat do attend Morning Chapel five times at the
  least in every week, or four times at the least including Sunday;
  and the same number of times in the Evening, under penalty that the
  week in which anyone shall not have so attended be not reckoned
  towards keeping the Term of such Undergraduate--unless such omission
  be repaired by extra attendance the week following.

Absentees were punished, and those who offended frequently were liable
to expulsion.

Until the era of the Reform Bill some regulation like this was
accepted as a matter of course, but when, in that period of enquiry,
all things were put to the proof, doubts as to its wisdom began to be
voiced. In 1834 Thirlwall, then assistant-tutor to Whewell, in an open
letter dated 21 May, while advocating the admission of dissenters to
the University, lamented the constant repetition in college chapels of
a mechanical service, believing the practice to be detrimental to the
interests of religion: he further expressed the opinion that
attendance at chapel services should be voluntary. He referred to a
then recent statement by Wordsworth in which the latter had said "the
alternative is not here between compulsory religion (as it is called)
and any other religion, but between compulsory religion and no
religion at all," and on this remarked:

  I cannot indeed draw such delicate distinctions as my friend seems
  to make in this passage; for as the epithet compulsory applied to
  religion appears to me contradictory, the difference between a
  compulsory religion and no religion at all is too subtle for my
  grasp. But if for _religion_ we substitute the word _service_,
  which would probably better express his meaning, then I should quite
  agree with him, that, in this case, a voluntary service would soon
  be changed into no service at all: that is, the persons who are now
  compelled to attend, if they were left at liberty, would stay away.
  And this is the very reason why I think it would be better that they
  should be allowed to do so.

The argument was amplified in a second letter dated 13 June. This was
skilful enough as a piece of dialectics though hardly likely to
convince opponents.

That an officer of the college should express such views and in this
way was regarded by Wordsworth as scandalous, and five days after the
publication of the first letter, without asking for any explanation,
he, with the consent or approval of Whewell and the two deans (Thorp
and Carus), removed Thirlwall from his office of assistant-tutor. This
arbitrary act was generally resented in the Society even by those who
disagreed with Thirlwall or thought that he had been indiscreet in his
advocacy; some too considered the act unstatutable, but Thirlwall
refused to appeal to the Visitor, and shortly afterwards left
Cambridge on his appointment, in November 1834, by the lord
chancellor, to the important living of Kirby-under-dale in Yorkshire.

Two years later, in 1836, while the matter was still a subject of
debate, Carus was made senior dean. He was a kindly man, leader in
the University of the school of thought associated with Simeon's name,
but, whether rightly or wrongly, was regarded as unsympathetic by
those who did not think as he did on religious questions. Carus
detested the view taken by Thirlwall, and far from conciliating
college opinion, which had been outraged by Wordsworth's action, urged
the seniority (a Board consisting of the master and the eight senior
resident fellows to which, under the Elizabethan statutes, the
government of the College was entrusted) to re-draft the rule of 1824
and make clear or stiffen the penalties for non-obedience. The
seniority agreed, and on 7 February 1838, issued the following order:

  Agreed by the Master and Seniors, that all Undergraduate Scholars,
  and Foundation Sizars do attend Chapel eight times at the least in
  every week, that is twice on Sunday and once every other day; the
  Scholars, on pain of losing _ipso facto_ their statutable allowance
  for Commons, and such additions as have since been made by the
  College in the way of augmentation to the Commons, for every week
  when there has been a failure of such attendance as is above
  described; and the Sizars, on pain of incurring _ipso facto_ an
  equivalent deduction in money from their allowances.

  Agreed also, that a like attendance be required from all other
  Undergraduates; and that in case of failure, the Parties so
  offending be forthwith admonished by the Deans; and if, after such
  admonition, irregularity be persisted in, notice be sent by the Dean
  to the Tutor, that a warning from him also may timely be given:
  after which, if both these means shall fail in producing regularity,
  the offender shall be reported by the Dean to the Master (or, in his
  absence, to the Vice-Master) to receive a formal admonition from
  him, in the presence of the Dean, a record of which shall be
  preserved: and finally, in all cases where such formal admonition
  shall have been incurred three times, the offender shall _ipso
  facto_ be removed from the College, either entirely, or for one or
  more Terms, according to the circumstances of the case; a record of
  this sentence being also preserved.

  Authority is given to the Deans to grant occasional leave of
  absence, on special application made previously, but not otherwise.
  Also on any casual failure of attendance, it is allowed to Deans to
  accept (in order to make up the deficiency) an equivalent attendance
  on other days during the same week only; any failure on Sundays to
  be compensated by attendance twice on other days.

According to college tradition, which came to me from C.W. King, an
undergraduate of the time, a deputation of scholars, who remonstrated
on the severity of these sanctions, was informed by Carus that
attendance at chapel was not so much a duty as a privilege, which was
valued the most by those who were oldest and therefore best qualified
to form an opinion on the subject--a boomerang argument which
obviously was dangerous unless the fellows themselves attended chapel
with the regularity desired from undergraduates.

On this rebuff, certain students formed a Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Undergraduates. Its founders issued a notice asking
whether what was forced on undergraduates was practised by dons; and
that facts might speak for themselves, they announced that they would
issue marking-sheets showing the attendance week by week of the
fellows in chapel. Copies of these marking-sheets were put
(surreptitiously) on the college screens, sent to London clubs, and
widely circulated. All efforts by the deans to discover the authors or
the printer employed failed; I understand, however, that
W.J. Conybeare, G.E.L. Cotton, J.S. Howson, C.L. Rose, and C.J. Tindal
were its chief promoters, and that the printer was Metcalfe of
9 Trinity Street. Copies of these marking-sheets are now very rare,
but a few years ago one came into the market which I was fortunate
enough to secure. It is bound in blue calf, stamped with the college
arms having as supporters two undergraduates in knee breeches waving
their caps, and with the motto _Nemo me impune lacessit_.

The first sheet is for the week ending 17 February 1838, and shows the
attendances, morning and evening, of the master and the eighteen
fellows then in residence. Each of the two deans attended ten times,
but they were in a peculiar position, for it was their duty, as the
Society pointed out, to go twice a day and therefore fourteen times in
each week. Only one of the other fellows, Perry, later bishop of
Melbourne, complied with the rule imposed on undergraduates, four
fellows went only once, and four not at all. To this sheet the Society
appended the following note:

  Does then this new regulation of the Master and Seniors proceed from
  any religious motive? Do they practice (_sic_) what they force on
  the Undergraduates? They are very regular in their attendance in
  Hall, but why are their places vacant in Chapel?

The next week showed a slight improvement in the attendances. The
Society congratulated itself on this, and in some general remarks
indicated what it expected from the fellows, copying these from the
notices on the subject issued by Carus. It should be said that in the
sheets those who were ill or away from Cambridge, were marked with an
_aeg_ or _abs_, so any such explanation of the absence of the others
from chapel was impossible.

In the third week the improvement continued, and three fellows in
addition to the master and the deans complied with the rule, but this
was the high water-mark of attendance, and after all it did not come
to much. The Society expressed its gratification at this, which it was
pleased to treat as the result of its efforts, and at the same time
issued the following notice:

  A prize for general regularity, and good behaviour when in Chapel,
  has been instituted by the Society, who are as anxious to reward
  merit as they are to punish immorality. But whilst they thus wish
  to instil into the minds of the Fellows those Religious feelings
  which, owing to a bad education, they may possibly be without, the
  Society most distinctly declare that they shall not be guided merely
  by an outward show of religion. It is not, therefore, enough to go
  merely eight times a week to Chapel, and when there to utter the
  responses so loud as to attract attention, or otherwise disturb the
  prayers of Undergraduates. Such conduct will at all times be
  severely punished.... For convenience of those members of Trinity
  College now residing in London, six copies of this publication are
  sent weekly to each of the University Clubs there.

In the fourth week, apart from the indefatigable Perry and the two
deans, no one came up to the prescribed standard. On this result the
Society remarked:

  The Society regret much that during the last week great laxity has
  prevailed among the Fellows in general with regard to their
  attendance in Chapel. This is the more to be lamented, as they had
  been for the two previous weeks so much more regular than usual.
  This irregularity cannot proceed from ill health, for they have been
  constantly to Hall, although they are not compelled to go there more
  than five times in each week. The Society, however, still hopes that
  in the ensuing week they will be able to make a more favourable
  report both of their attendance in Chapel, as also of their good
  conduct when there. As was before stated, any Fellow who shall,
  owing to any wine-party, or other sufficient reason, be prevented
  from attending, will be excused on sending a note previously to the
  Secretary of the Society, and his absence will be counted as
  presence. [The last seven words were a quotation from a note by
  Carus.] It is agreed by the Master and Seniors that all
  Undergraduates do go eight times at least each week! Why then do
  they not set us a better example?

These publications were widely disseminated and led to the production
of a number of epigrams and lampoons which were scattered broadcast
in the University. The Society appended to this sheet a note that its
members had "_no connexion whatever_ with _any_ of those abusive and
profane publications which have been so industriously circulated
during the last two weeks."

The sheet for the week ending 17 March, announced the success of the
movement, though in this return only Carus and Perry came up to the
standard. Appended to the sheet were the following notes:

  The Society in laying the first list of this month before the
  public, have much reason to be pleased with the success of the work
  which they have undertaken, for they have been informed, on very
  good authority, that the Cruelty System will not be continued more
  than a week longer, but that the Master and Seniors have determined
  to come to a new Agreement about Chapels.... If this should be the
  case, the end which the Society had in view will be accomplished,
  and the weekly publications will be discontinued, until called again
  into life by some new act of Cruelty upon the much enduring
  Undergraduates, but not otherwise. The Fellows have been very
  irregular during the last week, in their attendance at Chapel; so
  much so that only two of the whole number in residence have kept the
  number, which the Undergraduates are compelled to keep, on pain of
  being _ipso facto_ rusticated, either entirely, or for one or more
  terms. And yet one Member of Trinity College was really sent away
  during the past week (who had always been seven times each week
  before) because he had the courage to object to compulsory
  attendance at Chapel, especially from those men who had set him such
  an example!

In the course of the next week a printed notice appeared on the
screens reducing the number of compulsory attendances in chapel to two
on Sundays and four during the week. The paper, type, and setting look
as if this were issued by the authorities. I have, however, seen a
contemporary letter in which it is said that this notice was in fact a
forgery: the suggestion being that the men were tired of the joke, and
invented this way of terminating the episode. I cannot say whether the
deans modified their rule, and the question of the genuineness of this
notice must be left undecided. It is true that no extant minute of the
seniority exists about any new regulation, but the records of the
proceedings of that body are so imperfect that no conclusion can be
drawn from this.

The Society in publishing its last sheet, namely, that for the week
ending 24 March, concluded with the following class list and notes:

  The examination of the Fellows is now finished: and in arranging the
  different classes the Secretary has attached to each person's name
  his number of marks, in order to do away with any appearance of
  favour shewn more to one than another, as is too often the case in
  other Examinations.

    =First Class.=
    *Carus                        72
     Perry                        66
    *Barnes                       50

    =Second Class.=
     Heath                        42
     Wordsworth Senior            38
     Thorp                        35
     Whewell                      34
     Blakesley                    30

    =Third Class.=
     Peacock                      28
     Thompson                     19
     Brown                        17
     Dobson                       13
     Martin                       12

    =Last Class.=
     Wordsworth Junior             9
     Sedgwick                      5
     Field                         4
     Donaldson                     3

     Burcham                       0
     Walsh                         0

    * The two gentlemen marked with an asterisk are respectively
    Senior and Junior Dean, whose duty it is to go twice every
    day to Chapel.

  The Prize Medal for regular attendance at chapel and good conduct
  when there, has been awarded to Mr Perry, who has passed an
  examination highly creditable to himself and family. He was only 18
  marks below the highest number which he could possibly have gained.
  It is, therefore, to be hoped Mr P. will be more regular and do
  still better next term. With respect to the two Gentlemen who are
  not classed, the Secretary need hardly say that he does not envy
  them their feelings on the present occasion. In consequence of the
  New Agreement, the Chapel Lists will _ipso facto_ be discontinued
  for the future.

In the above list the master is designated as Wordsworth Senior. The
prize was awarded to Perry the future bishop, but instead of the
promised medal he was given a bible. This was secured for the College
in 1906, and now rests in our library. It is bound in calf, stamped
with the arms and supporters assumed by the Society, and bears the
inscription "From the Undergraduates of Trinity College to the Rev.
Charles Perry, M.A., as a mark of affection and esteem for the good
example which he set them and the _rest_ of the College by his
constant attendance at Chapel." I have been informed that to each of
the two fellows who did not attend at all there was sent a small bible
with an inscription therein of the Society's hope that its presence
among his books might in the future encourage him to perform tasks
which he believed to be important even though he found them
unpleasant.

The doggerel verses to which I have alluded as appearing in connection
with the struggle were, as far as I have seen them, poor stuff as
literary productions, and some were highly improper. The author of one
of the worst of them was discovered and expelled from the College,
12 March 1838. I possess copies of four or five of these productions,
their value consists entirely in giving us stories then current about
dons and things academic--stories, I may add, which appear generally
to have had no foundation in fact. The best set of verses, supposed to
be addressed on Saturday evening by a man to his bedmaker, is a parody
of Tennyson's _May Queen_. It begins: "You must mind and call me
early--call me early, d'ye hear? For I in morning chapel to-morrow
must appear," and on the whole runs easily. There is nothing in these
squibs which deserves remembrance or needs any further notice here.

There ends the story, and no comments on it or the actors in it are
needed. It may be added as a postscript, that for a long time
subsequent to this incident some attendance at chapel was required
from all who had no good reason to ask for exemption, and that as time
went on the requirements gradually grew less. The question of making
attendance at chapel compulsory on those who have not yet fully
attained years of discretion is admittedly difficult, and made more so
by the fact that while such attendance is approved and rigorously
imposed every day of the week at most public boarding schools on lads
up to the age of eighteen or nineteen, it is regarded as unthinkable
in the case of young graduates of twenty-one or so. Trinity College
finally adopted the view advocated by Thirlwall, and to-day attendance
at chapel services is voluntary.




CHAPTER V.

THE COLLEGE CHAPEL.


The College Chapel, as it appears to-day, is described in many of the
guide-books which are pressed on the casual traveller in Cambridge. I
am not here concerned with the accounts of it there given, for in this
paper I intend to deal with little beyond its history and traditions.

It is a matter of common knowledge that the present chapel was built
under the auspices of the Tudor queens, Mary and Elizabeth, on the
site of the old chapel of King's Hall. Let me begin by tracing briefly
the history of these successive buildings, and their connection with
college developments.

King's Hall owed its origin to the establishment of scholars in the
University of Cambridge by Edward II in 1317, and was put on a
permanent footing by Edward III in 1337. The original home of the
Society was a large two-storeyed house, built of wood and thatched,
bought from Robert de Croyland, and situated on the ground now
occupied by the walks and grass plot in front of the chapel. No chapel
or oratory was connected with it, and the Society worshipped in All
Saints' church which then stood on the green in Trinity Street facing
our present chapel.

In 1375 the College began the erection on the ground to the north and
west of its house of a larger building comprising a cloister court
with various extensions. The west side of this court, some hundred and
twenty feet long, is still standing and faces the bowling green: the
other three sides and the extensions have been destroyed. These
buildings were of three storeys, built of stone, brick, or rubble, and
tiled: they were finished about 1438, and the old mansion of Robert
de Croyland was then pulled down. Into the inner quadrangle of this
cloister court there projected from the middle of its western face a
wooden erection some fifteen feet long by fifteen feet wide, built in
1419-24 over what is now the junior combination room, and containing
on its upper floor an oratory which opened on to a gallery over the
cloisters on that side of the court. A list of the service-books,
plate, copes and other vestments, altar-cloths, curtains, gold
embroidery, etc., kept in this oratory in 1479 is given in my booklet
of 1917 on King's Hall. The building was small and the Society
continued to use All Saints' church for its more important services.

The desirability of having a chapel large enough for all college
purposes was obvious, and in 1464 the Society began the erection of
such a building, on ground beyond the eastern extension of the
cloister court. This new chapel, which covered part of the site of our
present chapel, was about a hundred feet long and thirty feet broad,
that is roughly half the length of and the same breadth as the present
chapel: it was built of stones, squared and supplied ready for use,
which according to Caius came from the large banqueting hall of the
Castle then being pulled down and probably by purchase from King's
College to whom these materials had been granted. It was wainscotted,
and was fitted with stalls and carved woodwork; the high altar, like
that of the older oratory, was of wood and the interior walls above
the wainscotting were plastered and whitewashed; the sum spent
suggests that the fittings were not elaborate. The work was finished
in 1499, but probably the chapel was used from 1485 onwards: of course
the plate, service-books, etc., were removed to it from the old
oratory.

Trinity College, on its foundation in 1546, naturally made use of this
chapel, for it was the only one available on the site[22] of the new
College. It is fairly certain that it was then fitted up with
additional seats and probably redecorated: the provision of a new
organ and a new lectern happen to be specifically mentioned.

Edward VI ascended the throne in 1547, and barely had the interior of
the chapel of King's Hall been adapted to the needs of the new
foundation than the College was required to remove all popish traces
from it. The altar and steps were taken down, and a communion table
set up, most likely in the middle of the chapel. The books, copes,
vestments, and altar ornaments which had come down from old times were
sold: they realized no less than £140. 8s. 8d., and the magnitude of
the sum obtained in such unfavourable conditions shows that the
services must have been conducted with considerable pomp. There is
to-day in the library a standing censer boat, ascribed to the end of
the fourteenth century or the early years of the fifteenth century,
with traces on it of its ancient gilding, but there is no record as to
how or when it came to us. King's Hall did in fact own among its
chapel vessels a "ship of silver" which probably means a censer boat,
and it may be that this is the vessel in question. With this possible
(but doubtful) exception all our medieval chapel plate has gone.

When in 1553 Mary succeeded her brother, the Roman religion was
restored, and the chapel again adapted to the old forms of worship.
Perhaps remonstrance was made by the master, Bill, who had been
appointed in 1551 on Redman's death and was a strong Anglican: at any
rate he was deprived of his office. The expulsion was dramatic and
apparently physical, for as he was sitting in his stall in the chapel
two members of the House, Mr Boys and Mr Gray, approached and "removed
him ... in a rude and insolent way." Declining any contest he retired
to Bedfordshire, and was succeeded as master by Christopherson, the
queen's chaplain and confessor.

Mary recognized the interest taken by her father in Trinity and, in
furtherance of his design, decided to rebuild the College on a
comprehensive plan. She issued orders about this on 24 October 1554,
and it was arranged in 1555 that the first large task undertaken in
connection with it should be the erection of a new chapel. Preliminary
work on this was commenced in 1556 and it was then expected that the
building would be finished by the end of 1557, but by October of that
year the walls were only half-way up: delays ensued and ten years
elapsed before the building was completed. The old chapel was unroofed
in 1561, and cannot, it would seem, have been used after that date: it
is possible it was shut up in the course of 1557, but early in that
year it was still in use, for the royal commissioners in January 1557
complained of the absence of lights on the altar and of coals to cense
the sacrament. During the years from the closing of the old chapel to
1567 it is uncertain whether the services were held in College or in
one of the town churches.

It was originally intended that the new chapel should be a hundred and
fifty-seven feet long and thirty-three feet broad, the east end being
flush with the street frontage of the Great Gate. The roof was to be
curved, open, and relieved with fretwork and oak pendants. There was
to be an east window, a west window, eleven windows on the south side,
and twelve on the north side from which it follows that it was to be
a detached building save for its abutment on staircase E in the Great
Court.

It was designed to contain two rows of stalls made after the pattern
of those at King's College, sixty-eight in the upper row with
misereres, divided by pillars, and with double crests above, and a
lower row of stalls not so divided. Unfortunately the contractor got
into money difficulties and sold much of the timber which had been
bought for the intended roof and stalls, causing the work to fall into
arrear.

After the accession of Elizabeth, changes in the plans of the new
chapel were made, the length being increased to two hundred and five
feet, thus making it project beyond the east side of the Great Court.
In 1564 the walls of the building were finished and plastered, and
the date 1564 cut on the east gable together with the text from the
Vulgate, Matthew xxi. 13, _Domus mea domus orationis vocabitur_, which
in the authorized version runs: "My house shall be called the house of
prayer" and is followed by the clause "but ye have made it a den of
thieves." Wags have sometimes continued the inscription by adding the
second clause on the chapel either of Trinity or of St John's as their
inclinations led them. The roof, put on in 1565, is of a style earlier
than this date, and Willis came to the conclusion that it is the
actual roof of the old chapel of King's Hall supplemented by
additional timber to fit it for the larger building: I like to think
that we still worship under the roof which sheltered our predecessors
more than four centuries ago.

In the year last mentioned, 1565, the stones for the pavement were
brought from Croyland Abbey and maybe some are still there. In the
next year the interior fittings were taken in hand, and the organ
screen erected. In the following year, 1567, the windows were glazed
with white glass bearing inscriptions, coats of arms, and heraldic
badges such as the fleur-de-lys, portcullis, and rose: the organ (a
small instrument) and the pulpit were moved from the old chapel, and
the stalls put in. It would seem that the wainscotting and wall-seats
in the present antechapel are of this date, and possibly came from
King's Hall. Moving from west to east in the completed building there
were in succession an antechapel sixty-five feet long, an organ-screen
eight feet deep, the chapel seats along some seventy feet, a space of
twenty-four feet, the communion table, and a space of thirty-six feet
free of encumbrances. The work was finished by Michaelmas, 1567. There
is no record of the building having been consecrated.

Mary died in 1558, and on 20 November, the Sunday following the
proclamation of Elizabeth, Bill, the former master of the College,
preached at St Paul's Cross in London; the next Sunday, his successor
Christopherson preached there. Probably the men disliked one another,
and certainly took different views of the position. Some scandal was
caused, an the upshot of the affair was that Christopherson was sent
to prison, while Bill returned to Cambridge, restored to the
mastership.

Bill, a discreet courtier, was a favourite at court, and held, under
Elizabeth's favour, the provostship of Eton and the deanery of
Westminster together with the mastership of Trinity; it was probably
due to his influence that Elizabeth in 1560 issued a commission to
procure materials and labour for completing the chapel which had been
begun on her sister's initiative. Baker praised his prudence and
temper while master, and added that "if he has shown any frailties or
failings here, allowances must be made for difficult times and potent
courtiers that are not easily resisted." In my opinion the services to
the College of its first three masters, Redman, Bill, and
Christopherson, were of the greatest value, and have hardly received
that recognition from posterity which they deserve.

On Bill's death, the crown offered the mastership to Beaumont, a
calvinist whose views were more pronounced than Cecil supposed at the
time of the appointment. Beaumont sympathized with the puritan party,
whose numbers in the University were now rapidly increasing, but did
little to guide them or to check their intolerance which constantly
offended public opinion.

The description of the windows in the new chapel does not suggest that
figures or catholic symbols appeared thereon, but, none the less, the
"malcontents" thought them objectionable and in November 1565, broke
"all the windows wherein did appear superstition." In the same term
occurred the famous surplice disturbance[23]. The puritans objected to
the use of the surplice in chapel on Sundays, Saints' days, and their
eves, and on a certain "Sunday (in Dr Whitgift's absence), Mr
Cartwright and two of his adherents made three sermons on one day in
the chapel so vehemently inveighing against the ceremonies of the
church that at evening prayer all the scholars save three [together
with one of the chaplains] (viz. Dr Leg, Mr West, Whitaker's tutor,
and the chaplain) cast off their surplices as an abominable relic of
superstition"--a curious illustration of how little the calvinists
esteemed the value of academic discipline unless they exercised it
themselves. The organization of this demonstration was attributed to
Cartwright, their leader in the University and a fellow of the
College; it was probably due to the disapproval of his conduct in this
and similar matters that shortly afterwards he went out of residence
for two or more years.

Beaumont died in 1567 and at his request was buried "with no vain
jangling of bells nor any other popish ceremonies" in the new chapel,
his being the first interment in it. He is commemorated by a carving
(somewhat difficult to detect) of his face on the tenth principal in
the chapel roof reckoned from the east end--it is lettered _R. B. Mr._
He was succeeded by Whitgift and the result of the subsequent bitter
struggle between him and the puritans settled the constitution and
policy of the University till the middle of the nineteenth century,
but the battle was mainly fought in the senate-house and in London,
and is not specially connected with our chapel.

Alterations to the organ were made in 1594, and elaborate hangings
placed in the organ loft in 1604. Thenceforward repairs and
reconstructions of the organ followed one another every few years. The
history of the instrument has been published in pamphlet form, and I
shall not again refer to its successive enlargements. The west window
was blocked up about this time owing to the removal of King Edward's
Tower to its present position.

There is an account of college doings in chapel in 1635 in the
following memorandum sent to Laud, and endorsed by him as embodying
matter which he intended to examine during an intended visit to
Cambridge in September 1636.

  In Trinity College, they have been long noted to be negligent of the
  chapel and of prayers in it; the best come but seldom, and by their
  example the rest make small account of service. In some tutors'
  chambers (who have three or four score pupils), the private prayers
  are longer and louder by far at night than they are at Chapel in the
  evening. Some fellows are there, who scarce see the inside of the
  chapel thrice in a year, nor public hall, nor St Mary's Church, and
  (they say) impugn all.

  A quire is there founded for Sundays and holydays, but the quiremen
  are so negligent and unskilful, that, unless it be an anthem, they
  often sing the hymns no otherwise than in the common psalmerie tune.
  And to mend the matter, they have divers dry choristers (as they
  call them), such as never could and never meane to sing a note, and
  yet enjoy, and are put in to take the benefit of those places
  professedly. They have a large chapel, and yet the boyes rows of
  pews are placed just in the middle of the chapel, before and behind
  the Communion-table, which some there are about to reform.

  They lean, or sit, or kneele at prayers, everyone in a several
  posture as he pleases. At the name of Jesus few will bow, and when
  the creed is repeated, many of the boyes, by some men's directions,
  turn towards the west door. Their surplices and song-books, and
  other furniture for divine service, is very mean. The cloth that
  lies upon the table not worth 14d. He that executes, steps over the
  exhortation and begins, _Wherefore I pray and beseech you, &c._ They
  use no Litany for the most part, but in Lent only, and in Lent only
  upon Sundays, and when they say it, it is at the Communion-table.
  They repeat not the Creed after the Gospel, and instead of the
  _Magnificat_ and the _Nunc Dimittis_, they will at pleasure
  (sometimes when the quiremen are present) sing the 23rd or some
  other riming Psalm.... They have lately taken advice, and are about
  mending their chapel, if it holds.

  Fellows ... (when of the degree of M.A.) and fellow-commoners, take
  themselves generally to have a privilege to miss prayers, as well as
  the public table of the hall. From hence it comes to pass, that so
  many of that ranke are to be founde at those times, either in
  taverns and towne-houses, or at some other pleasant imployments,
  where they please.

Whether all this was true or not we cannot say, but at any rate in the
following year, 1636, the College spent a considerable sum on
alterations and decorations in the chapel. The communion table was
removed to the east end and the ground there raised, a pavement of
stone and marble laid down, the walls were panelled, and rich hangings
provided. Charles I, with his son the prince of Wales, visited the
chapel in March 1642, and was much pleased therewith: we read at this
time of candlesticks, tapers, and a crucifix on the altar; other
references show that the ritual was high.

The next year 1643 saw a great change, for the parliamentary party
secured control of the town and district. The order compelling the use
of the surplice on certain days was now rescinded, and under Dowsing
the chapel was purged, the altar steps levelled, the altar taken away,
and a wooden communion table without rails set up in the middle of the
chapel; the organ and hangings were removed; and certain figures,
painted on the walls at the east end whitewashed. The zealots did not
think the reforms had gone far enough, but no other changes were
forced on the College, and a few months later the Society made a money
present "to some of Major Scot's souldiers who defended the chappell
from the rudenesse of the rest." A few years later, on 12 March 1647,
Sir Thomas Fairfax then in command of the district came, and was
received "in great state ... in the Chapel, he was presented with a
rich bible, and in the hall with a sumptuous banquet"--a pleasant
combination.

At the restoration, the original altar of 1643 was recovered and
replaced at the east end, a screen of rich mosaic work erected behind
it, and as far as practicable the chapel restored to its former
appearance. Doubtless, however, practices continued which to-day would
strike us as unseemly, for I notice that in 1665 "it was agreed that
Dod have the place of keeping the dogs out of the chapel."

In the early years of the eighteenth century the condition of the
fabric caused anxiety; after only a little more than a century's wear
the roof was found to be in a dangerous condition, and a portion of
one of the external walls in danger of falling. It was determined to
place the building, inside as well as outside, in thorough repair.
Work began in 1706 and was nearly thirty years in progress. The
fellows and a few friends subscribed a large part of the cost, and the
rest was paid out of corporate income. In the plan adopted, which is
associated with the names of Bentley and Cotes, the east window was
blocked, and the present stalls, baldachino, organ-screen, and
wainscotting erected: the design of the latter is excellent of its
kind, though not altogether suited to the architecture of the
building. Some of the old stalls are said to have been removed to
St Michael's church, and the tradition may be accepted as probable.
Later in the century, 1787-88, the roof was painted in white and gold.

The number of residents in College in the early half of this century
was small, and probably the chapel was in regular use during most of
its restoration. A trivial incident at this time afforded some
amusement. Complaints had been made that Bentley--an illustrious
scholar, genuinely interested in promoting learning, but as master of
Trinity arrogant, unscrupulous, and dishonest--never went to chapel
though required to do so by the statutes. This was true enough, and he
determined to silence his critics by appearing again. But so long had
he been absent that the door of his stall had got fixed and could not
be opened till the lock had been wrenched off.

Prof. Hughes has called my attention to some unpublished notes[24] by
a friendly visitor about the chapel services on Saturday and Sunday
evenings in the fourth decade of the eighteenth century. The writer
says that interpolated in the evening prayers were elaborate musical
performances sometimes involving two symphonies[25] and two anthems
in which the choir, organ, and six violins took part; he also repeats
more than once that the building was crowded [by strangers] and the
noise so great that little of the service could be heard. Thus, to
quote one instance, under date of 28 May 1738, he writes:

  This evening I was at Trinity Colledge Chapple where there was so
  great a crowd that nothing could be heard of the whole service, I
  could see the Readers lips go, but, not so much as heare the least
  sound of his voice, and when Dr Walker read the 2d Leason could I
  only heare the sound of his voice but not to distinguish one word.
  There was great difference in the Musick part from what used to be,
  for the symphony was first by the Organ and then by 6 violins in
  3 parts to all which the Organ was the base. After the reading the
  first and 2nd Lessons, 3 men sang the [blank] to which the Choire
  was the Corus. Before the Prayer for the King there was another
  Symphony by the Organ, & Violins, and the Anthem was Sung by one
  man, to which the choir was likewise the chorus.

Throughout most of the eighteenth century, a good many of the fellows
resident in Cambridge held livings in the vicinity. They were
accustomed to ride out on Sunday to their cures, hold services, and
return home to a comfortable supper the same evening, but in general
neglected their parishes during the rest of the week. Thus if a
parishioner died, the funeral was deferred till the following Sunday;
and if a marriage-service was to be held in the village, it had to
wait for a free Sunday. In these circumstances the bride and
bridegroom often settled the matter by coming into Cambridge for the
ceremony, and during the first half of this century our chapel was
constantly borrowed for such marriage services; after the Marriage Act
of 26 George II, cap. 33, this use of it became illegal unless a
special license were obtained. Since that Act, it has been used only
once for such a purpose, namely, for the marriage of Miss Butler on
18 December 1901.

Coming to the nineteenth century, we have numerous notes about the
chapel and the services. At the beginning of this period the author of
_Alma Mater_ (J.M.F. Wright, who commenced residence in 1817) gives an
unfavourable account of the services, saying that they were gabbled
through as fast as possible amid a great deal of talking. The first
part of this statement may be correct, but as to the second probably
conversation was rare, and such as took place, though not condemned by
public opinion, was subdued and was held only in recesses, one of
which was known as iniquity corner. In fact, we may take it that the
vast majority of the undergraduates acted as gentlemen though they
attended chapel reluctantly and merely as a matter of discipline.
Attendance was required at seven o'clock in the morning, not a
convenient hour, albeit considerably later than that usual in Tudor
times.

In 1831 the fabric was again thoroughly repaired, the roof
redecorated, certain stalls elevated, desks at the east end
constructed, and a new scheme of lighting by candelabra introduced. A
few years later, in 1838, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Undergraduates concerned themselves with marking the attendance of
fellows in chapel. That incident I have described elsewhere.

In 1867-75 the building was again thoroughly overhauled, the south
side faced with stone, a porch, a new vestry, and a choir-room built,
the organ screen moved a few feet westward, the walls and roof
painted, gilding used freely on the panelling, the windows filled with
stained glass, backed benches and kneeling stools introduced for
undergraduates, and the building lighted with gas. During part of the
time occupied by this restoration, the College used St Michael's
church as its chapel.

According to the scheme of decoration, adopted on the advice of
Lightfoot and Westcott, if we proceed eastwards up the chapel we are
supposed to note, in order, the frescoes on the walls (which
represent old testament heroes and teachers) and paintings on the roof
(which illustrate the Benedicite), leading up through Jewish history
to the birth of Christ, and then, returning westward, to have
suggested to us, by the successive windows, the historical development
of Christianity and the growth of learning particularly in the
University and College. A man might worship many years in the chapel
before he discovered this design.

The panels in the sacrarium are replaced by intarsia work in which all
the woods used are of their natural colours. The sixteenth-century
silver cross on the communion table came from Spain. The wrought-iron
gas standards here and through the chapel are also worthy of note;
fortunately they were allowed to remain when the electric light was
introduced. All this, as well as the scheme of decoration of the
antechapel, is described in guide-books with more or less accuracy.

Probably the services were never rendered more effectively than in the
years following this restoration. Attendance on Sunday evening was
required unless absentees could urge conscientious or other good
reasons for exemption, but a large proportion of those who might have
obtained exemption did, in fact, take part in the Sunday services.
More benches were placed in the chapel than are there now, and the
building, with every seat occupied and everyone (save a few
privileged visitors) in a surplice, presented a most impressive scene.
Electric light was introduced in 1893, and has added much to the
comfort of congregations in winter evenings.

In former days members of the Society who died in College were not
infrequently buried in the chapel--a shocking thing to permit in a
building in constant use, though sanctioned by the custom of many
centuries. There are a good many tombstones scattered over the floor,
and copies of all the inscriptions have been published. I wonder how
many members of the Society know that among those here buried is one
woman, bearing the strange Christian name of Elismar. The last
interment in the chapel took place in October 1886, and further
burials are now forbidden unless sanctioned by the Home Office.

The building has always been used for various secular purposes, such
as elections to scholarships and fellowships; the admission of
scholars, fellows, and officers; the affixing of the College seal to
documents, and the delivery of declamations by students. Within recent
years lectures in the antechapel and an oration in the chapel have
been delivered. I believe the view that a church or chapel is intended
only for the performance of religious services is modern and
unwarranted by history: at any rate our records give no authority for
it.


[Footnote 22: On the site acquired for the College were situated the
buildings of King's Hall, Michael-House, Physwick's Hostel, and some
private hostels or boarding houses. Members of private hostels used
their parish churches. All the students in Physwick's Hostel were
members of Gonville Hall, and used the chapel of that Hall. The
members of Michael-House used St Michael's church: this House had been
founded in 1324 by Hervey de Stanton for a master and six fellows, who
if not priests at the time of admission, had to take orders within one
year; and later two more fellows, three chaplains, and four bible
clerks were added to the foundation, which was intended for secular
clergy studying in the University. The church of St Michael was
appropriated to it, and rebuilt by its founder for use as its chapel.
The fellows had in their House an oratory, and in March 1393, the
bishop of Ely granted them leave to build a chapel, but their history
and convenience alike made them wish to continue to use St Michael's
church as their regular chapel.]

[Footnote 23: Fuller's _History of Cambridge_, reprint 1840, p. 265.
Fuller mistakenly assigned the disturbance to 1566-67 instead of
1565-66.]

[Footnote 24: Since published in the _Proceedings_ of the Cambridge
Antiquarian Society, 22 May 1916, vol. XX, pp. 114-116.]

[Footnote 25: When I first came into residence a survival of this
interpolated symphony existed in a long organ solo which preceded the
anthem.]




CHAPTER VI.

SOME COLLEGE TREASURES.


Those who live among beautiful surroundings and in constant touch with
works of art are often apt to take their privileges for granted.
Members of Trinity are proud of the buildings of the College and the
grounds in which they are placed, and most of us know something of
their history and characteristic features. But with our art treasures
there is less general acquaintance, and so perhaps it may not be out
of place to jot down a few notes on some of them--chiefly pictures and
plate--in which I take pleasure.

Of the contents of the library I say nothing, for a volume would be
needed to describe them even briefly. The illuminated manuscripts and
the early printed books attract most attention, but there are numerous
other subjects in which the library must be ranked among the most
important in Great Britain. I have often been told by undergraduates
that they have never been in the building except once when they signed
the Admission Book. That is true enough of some men, but those who are
interested in rare and famous books and yet never visit the Library
neglect exceptional opportunities.

Of oil portraits--in all nearly two hundred--of former members of
the College, we own a valuable collection, and they illustrate in a
remarkable way how many distinguished men have been educated here.
Identification is easy as labels are placed on most of the pictures.
Unfortunately we have no gallery in which they can be shown. Some are
put in the hall, some in the master's lodge, some in the combination
room, and some in the library, lecture-rooms, etc. Those in the lodge
are set off well, but the others are not hung to advantage.

About twenty-five years ago a proposal was made to raise subscriptions
for an art gallery to be built along the edge of the river starting
from the present north end of the library and extending over the land
now occupied by the master's stables and the end of his garden. At
that time the proposal did not receive much favour, but now I
sometimes wonder if we were wise in putting the plan on one side.
Certainly we have more canvasses than we can exhibit satisfactorily.
The hall, too, would look a more dignified apartment if the pictures,
except for one or two on the dais, were taken away: recently their
temporary removal was necessitated by repairs to the woodwork, and the
improvement in the appearance of the room was noticeable. The general
effect of such a clearance may be judged by a visit to the hall of the
Middle Temple in London. The dimensions of the body of that hall are
the same as ours, but instead of pictures on the side walls, each
small oak panel bears an armorial shield: these harmonise well with
the architectural lines of the building. Where, as is the case with
our neighbours at St John's, the panelling is low and there is above
it a big stretch of stone or painted wall, pictures add to the effect,
but this is not the case where the panelling is high.

Of all our pictures I suppose the one which attracts most attention is
that of Henry VIII which hangs over the dais at the north end of the
hall: it was given us by Robert Beaumont, who held the mastership from
1561 to 1567. The artist was Hans Eworth, a Dutchman who lived in
London circ. 1543-75, and worked with or under the influence of
Antonio Moro: the portrait was taken from or founded on that of the
king in the fresco painted by Holbein in 1537 on a wall of the privy
chamber in Whitehall palace. This fresco, which was destroyed in the
fire of 1698 and till then deservedly treated as one of the art
treasures of London, contained portraits of Henry VII and Henry VIII
with their queens, Elizabeth of York and Jane Seymour. Holbein's
studies for the heads of the two kings have been preserved, and are at
Chatsworth and Munich. Most of the extant portraits of Henry VIII are
copied from or founded on this fresco. Signs of deterioration in the
fresco were noticeable in the reign of Charles II, and by his orders
it was copied by Remée, a French painter then resident in London. The
original fresco was on each side of and above a fireplace or window.
Instead of depicting this, the artist represented this space as
occupied by a pedestal containing an inscription: his delineation of
the faces of the sovereigns is poor, but he has preserved Holbein's
general design. Two copies of the reproduction are extant, one of
which is in the royal collection and the other at Petworth.

Hardly less notable than the presentation of our founder, and far more
valuable, is the charming portrait by Joshua Reynolds of the duke of
Gloucester (1776-1834) as a boy: the duke was a cousin of George III
and afterwards chancellor of the University. Reynolds wrote in his
diary that the boy sat for his portrait in March 1780 when he was four
years old, and that the finished picture was delivered in January
1788--the charge for it being a hundred guineas. Horace Walpole
praised it, but thought it "washy," an opinion not shared by modern
critics who esteem it one of Reynolds's masterpieces. The picture was
left to the College in 1843 by the will of the duke's sister, the
Princess Sophia, with a request that it should be hung in the hall.
The legacy was due to the good offices of a freshman of the time--the
Hon. Douglas Gordon, son of George, fourth earl of Aberdeen. He
described the circumstances attending the gift as follows:

  When I went up to Trinity in 1842, I used to see a great deal of the
  princess.... [I was then] a freshman full of admiration for my
  College of which I used to boast. One day the old princess shewed me
  the picture, ... and asked if I thought it would look well in the
  Hall. On my saying what a boon it would be, she very graciously said
  "You can tell Mr Whewell that I will leave it to the College through
  you, and I hope you will see this picture placed in a good
  position." At her death I took it down to Trinity where I was still
  an undergraduate.

The portrait of queen Mary on the other side of the dais is a Spanish
copy of Antonio Moro's famous picture which hangs in Madrid. The
original is said to have been given to Philip after his engagement to
her; it presents her as a woman of strong character but far from
beautiful. When the marriage took place, it was unkindly said by a
Spanish courtier that whatever were the faults of his master, it must
at least be admitted that he recognized the obligation of a gentleman
to keep his word.

Of other pictures in the hall those of Tennyson (1809-92) painted in
1890 by G.F. Watts, of the earl of Essex (1566-1601) painted in 1590,
of Isaac Newton (1642-1727) painted in 1725 by John Vanderbank, and of
Francis Bacon (1561-1626) copied from Van Somer's portrait in Gray's
Inn are specially noticeable. Newton and Barrow (together with
Pearson who is mentioned below) played a leading part in the
intellectual life in the University towards the close of the
seventeenth century, but I need not talk here about this. Barrow, who
was a mathematician and divine, had a ready wit. When, previous to his
admission to holy orders, he was examined on his faith, the dialogue
is said to have been as follows:--Chaplain: _Quid est fides?_ Barrow:
_Quod non vides._ Chaplain: _Quid est spes?_ Barrow: _Magna res._
Chaplain: _Quid est caritas?_ Barrow: _Magna raritas._ On which his
questioner retired in dudgeon, and reported that there was a candidate
for ordination who would only give him "rhyming answers to moral
questions": but the bishop had the sense to recognize that truths can
be expressed in rhyme as well as in prose, and Barrow was ordained.

A very pleasing picture is that reputed to be of Byron: this looks
like a Raeburn, though it is ascribed to Thomas Lawrence: its history
is doubtful, but the absence of any peculiarity in the ear is _prima
facie_ evidence that it is not of Byron. Another striking portrait is
that of W.H. Thompson (1810-1886) painted in 1881 by Hubert
von Herkomer. When Thompson saw the completed portrait of himself, he
is said to have remarked, "Do I really look as if I held the world so
cheap" and in a print of it in the house of one of my friends, this is
inscribed on the frame. I ought also to call attention to the window
portrait of Richard, duke of York (1411-60), the father of Edward IV
and Richard III, which probably comes to us from King's Hall.

Among other paintings, which at present hang on the hall panelling,
are portraits of the following famous members of our College:--Edward
White Benson (1829-96) archbishop of Canterbury, Isaac Hawkins Browne
(1706-60), Arthur Cayley (1821-95), the earl of Derby (1826-93),
Michael Foster (1836-1907), Francis Galton (1822-1911), the earl of
Halifax (1661-1715), Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-92), Richard
Claverhouse Jebb (1841-1905), Joseph Joachim (1831-1907) the musician,
Thomas Jones (1756-1807), Joseph Barber Lightfoot (1828-89) bishop of
Durham, Frederick Denison Maurice (1805-72), James Clerk Maxwell
(1831-79), viscount Melbourne (1779-1849), Matthew Raine (1760-1811),
Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873), Henry Sidgwick (1838-1900), Charles John
Vaughan (1816-97), Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) bishop of Durham,
John Westlake (1828-1908), and William Whewell (1794-1866).

Of these, Raine, Jones, Halifax and Hawkins Browne lived in the
eighteenth century. The last-named is known to fame through having
caused a change in the family reigning in the two Sicilies. In fact,
coming to Naples in his travels he danced at a court ceremony "with
such inconceivable alacrity and vigour" as to provoke universal
amusement and amazement: in particular the queen's laughter was so
immoderate that a miscarriage ensued. On such events may the histories
of dynasties and empires turn! He is described on this occasion as
pirouetting in a "dress of volcano silk with lava buttons": perhaps it
is in this costume that he is depicted on our walls. Having related
this anecdote I must in fairness add that he was a poet of
considerable ability, a good talker in an age when the standard of
conversation was high, and an excellent judge of wine. Most of the
portraits are, however, of celebrities of the Victorian age. Of these,
Melbourne and Derby were politicians; Benson, Hort, Lightfoot,
Vaughan, and Westcott represent the church; Westlake was a lawyer;
Jebb a scholar; Maurice and Sidgwick represent ethical philosophy;
while Cayley, Foster, Galton, Maxwell, Sedgwick, and Whewell, were men
of science.

Among the canvasses above the panelling are portraits of Richard
Bentley (1662-1742) the scholar, Edward Coke (1549-1634) the lord
chief justice, Cowley (1618-67) the poet, John Dryden (1631-1701) the
poet, the earl of Macclesfield (1666-1732), John Pearson (1613-86)
bishop of Chester, Robert Smith (1689-1768) the mathematician, and
John Wilkins (1614-72) bishop of Chester. Wilkins is now almost
unknown but he wrote some interesting books, notably one on the
ciphers employed in the civil war of the seventeenth century. Another
work of his on the possibility of a journey to the moon, provoked the
duchess of Newcastle to ask him where she could find a place to bait
if she tried the journey: "Madam," said he, "of all the people in the
world I least expected that question from you, who have built so many
castles in the air that you may lie every night in one of your own."

The pictures in the large combination room of Isaac Newton by Thomas
Murray, and of Matthew Prior (1664-1721) by Godfrey Kneller are good:
the former came to us from a descendant (Mrs Ring) of Newton's
favourite niece, and its history is given in a letter from Charles
Simeon to Mansel, master of the College at the time of the gift. The
other canvasses are too big for a private apartment, but the portraits
of the "proud" duke of Somerset (1662-1748) by Nathaniel Dance, the
marquess of Granby (1721-70) by Joshua Reynolds, the duke of
Gloucester by John Opie, the marquess of Camden (1759-1840) by Thomas
Lawrence, the duke of Grafton (1760-1844) also by Lawrence, and the
duke of Sussex (1773-1843) by James Lonsdale, are of some repute: to
these there was added in 1915 a portrait of Arthur J. Balfour by
P.A. Laszlö de Lombros.

Of the peers mentioned above the names of Granby and Somerset are
still well known. Granby fought in the Culloden campaign, was colonel
of the blues (horse guards) at Minden, 1759; commander of the British
contingent in the campaigns of 1760, 1761, and 1762; and in 1766
became commander-in-chief of the army. Delighting in danger, which
even when in supreme command he deliberately sought, brave to a fault,
an excellent cavalry leader, rich and lavishly generous, he was the
idol of the public, and witnesses to his popularity remain in the
numerous public-houses scattered far and wide over England which bear
his name and arms. Somerset was of a very different type, being a
stupid man whose power was chiefly derived from his enormous landed
possessions. To the Somerset properties he added, by his marriage with
the sole heiress of the earls of Northumberland, the great estates of
the Percies. He held the chancellorship of the University for the
extraordinary term of sixty years. His title of the "proud duke"
commemorates only his arrogance, and was derived from the fact that
even to speak to anyone in a menial position was regarded by him as a
condescension. His servants were trained to understand his wishes by
signs, and numerous footmen surrounded him when in the streets so as
to avoid the risk that any people of the lower classes should approach
or address him. Perhaps the best known of the stories of his
pretensions refers to his remark to his second wife who once called
his attention to something by touching him with her fan (or according
to another version kissed him without asking his leave), "Madam," said
he, drawing himself apart, "my first wife never dared to take such a
liberty, and she was a Percy." As another illustration of his
character I may add that he deprived one of his daughters of £20,000
because she had sat down in his presence without asking his leave.

In the lodge there are numerous portraits of former masters of the
College, and obviously this is the proper place for such a collection.
It is not complete, twelve past masters being unrepresented, but
portraits of two of these (namely Wilkins and Pearson) hang in the
hall. The most notable picture in this series is that of Nevile, which
is properly given the place of honour over the mantelpiece in the
dining room which he built. He holds a paper in his right hand, and
I like to think that this is intended to suggest the letter which
Elizabeth on her death-bed entrusted to him to take to Scotland,
informing James VI of that kingdom that she designated him as her
successor. In this room too are portraits of Porson and Thompson with
whose memories so many excellent academic stories are associated, but
I must not linger over these. In the drawing room the most striking
portraits are those of queen Elizabeth by Mark Gerrard, the duke of
Gloucester (1776-1834) in his undergraduate robes by George Romney,
and queen Mary probably by Hans Eworth. The painted panels in the
entrance hall often escape attention, but are worth looking at,
especially in the case of the portraits of Edward III, Henry VII,
Elizabeth of York, Mary of Scotland, Edward VI, and queen Mary. The
collection of portraits, formed by Dr Butler, of Trinity men who have
held judicial appointments is also interesting, but is not generally
accessible to visitors.

The pictures in the lecture-rooms and on the walls of the staircase
leading to them form a sort of overflow collection, and though of
unequal merit, a few are worth attention. There are also some pictures
of merit in the library among which I note in particular portraits of
Tennyson and Lightfoot.

The engravings of former members of the College placed in the small
combination room will repay study. There are at present between one
hundred and fifty and two hundred here, but there are many more in
portfolios in the library. Several of these have been acquired in
recent years through the generosity and knowledge of John Charrington.

The painted glass in the hall shows numerous coats of arms, and anyone
acquainted with heraldry will find here a rich field of study. The
windows could have been filled over and over again with the arms of
former famous members of the College, but the matter has been managed
in a haphazard way, and many distinguished sons of the House are
unrepresented. In spite of some bad glass the collection is
interesting. Perhaps however any further account of it here would be
more technical than would be justified in a paper like this. Of other
glass in the College, the windows in the chapel are typical of the art
of 1870, and are only moderately satisfactory. The window at the south
end of the library, executed in 1775, was made by Peckitt of York,
after a design by Cipriani: it illustrates some curious points in the
history of the art of stained glass, but the design is impossible, and
the scheme of colour atrocious.

Sculpture, unless it is absolutely first rate, does not represent a
man as well as portraiture. The number of pieces of statuary of the
first class in Great Britain is small, and in the possession of such
pieces the College is extraordinarily fortunate. The statue of Newton,
with its proud inscription "Newton qui genus humanum ingenio
superavit," in the antechapel by Roubiliac--"the marble index of a
mind for ever voyaging through strange seas of thought alone"--is of
the highest merit. It was described by Chantrey as "the noblest of
English statues," and I have never seen any modern piece of statuary
anywhere which can be ranked superior to it: the man lives and almost
moves. Thorwaldsen's statue of Byron, rejected by the authorities of
Westminster Abbey on account of his alleged atheistical opinions,
which stands in the library, and that of Bacon in the antechapel may
also be reckoned among examples of first-class statuary. Of these
three pieces two are by foreigners. There are also in the antechapel
statues of Barrow, Macaulay, Whewell, and Tennyson, and in the library
a large number of busts. The statues of Edward III on the clock tower,
of Henry VIII, James I, Anne of Denmark, and Prince Charles on the
great gate, and of queen Elizabeth on the queen's gate are
interesting, though not to be reckoned as works of art.

Old Silver Plate has a peculiar beauty. We have some fine specimens
though they are fewer and later than from our history we should
expect. Most of the pieces are kept in the butteries, and can be seen
by visitors. Twice a year anyone entering the hall will see the junior
bursar there with all the plate spread before him checking it by his
lists, a pretty spectacle which always suggests to me the picture of
the king "in his counting house counting out his money," and formerly
in "May-week" typical pieces were set out on show in the hall.

We have a catalogue of the plate--a large and valuable
collection--owned by King's Hall in the fifteenth century, and we may
reasonably suppose that this, as well as the plate belonging to
Michael-House, came in due course to us; all this has gone with the
possible, but doubtful, exception of a censer boat now in the library.
We know also that some plate was given us in Tudor and early Stuart
times: of this, only five pieces remained to us at the restoration. I
take it however that until well into the eighteenth century people
were accustomed to regard plate, other than pieces of historic
interest, as a convenient way of keeping portable wealth in a form
which could be easily turned into coin, and its dispersion in times of
emergency when money was wanted is not surprising.

It was customary for noblemen and fellow-commoners to present plate to
the House when they completed their academic career: their
caution-money being commonly employed for or towards the purpose.
After the restoration, thanks to this graceful practice, our
possessions of this kind grew rapidly. Unfortunately a good many of
our pieces were lost through two burglaries, one in 1795 and the other
in 1798; for instance, no less than fifty-five drinking cups some of
great beauty were then taken. During the eighteenth century, in
colleges and throughout the country, large numbers of "standing
pieces" of plate were melted down, and the metal used to make spoons
and forks; this accounts for the disappearance of some of our
treasures of an earlier date. Until 1870 new pieces continued to be
added in large numbers: in that year the College abolished the general
admission of noblemen and fellow-commoners, holding that distinctions
of rank were undesirable in academic life; and since then our
collection has increased only by special gifts or by purchase.

Of our pre-commonwealth plate the oldest pieces are two silver-gilt
flagons, dated 1607-08, given us in 1636 by John and Bernard Stuart,
sons of the duke of Lennox, then about sixteen and fourteen years old.
There is in the small combination room a charming print of Vandyke's
portrait of the brothers: both boys were killed during the Civil War,
John at Edgehill and Bernard at Rowton Heath. Whistles are placed in
the handles of these flagons, so they must have been originally
intended for secular use, but they have been included, as far back as
our records go, among the communion plate: perhaps the spouts were
added when the vessels were placed in the chapel. Our next earliest
piece is the handsome cup, dated 1615-16, given us by Nevile probably
in 1615: it was originally silver-gilt. The fourth of these pieces is
a bursarial rose-water basin and ewer dated 1635-36. We owe it to
Ambrose Aykerod who was bursar in that year: his arms are engraved on
the cup, and the inscriptions on it refer to vows and pledges by him
which are now inexplicable. The only other early piece which survived
the Civil War was a cup given by John Clarkson between 1610 and 1620
and known from its inscription "Pauper Johannes Dictus Cognomine
Clarkson Hunc Cyathum Dono Gratuito Dedit" as the "Pauper Joan Pot":
this was stolen in 1798. Clarkson had matriculated as a sizar in 1553,
obtained a scholarship in due course, and graduated B.A. in 1560.

Apart from the four pieces mentioned above, the most striking objects
in our collection are the rose-water basins and ewers, the Duport
standing salt, the standing or loving cups, the tankards, and the
punch-bowls.

We have several notable rose-water basins and ewers. The earliest of
these is the set given by the earl of Kent in 1662 to commemorate the
passing of the Act of Uniformity. The date is given by a quaint double
chronogram: and the central inscription Νιψον ανομηματα μη μοναν οψιν
reads alike forwards and backwards. Another beautiful set is that
given by the duke of Buckingham in 1671, the circumference of the
basin being over seven feet. The visitor should also notice a set of
1740 bequeathed by David Humphrey, and a set of 1748 given by William
John Bankes. Another set consists of a basin of 1716 given by John
Bennet, with a graceful ewer probably made about 1675. This ewer must
have been originally a "standing cup" since a whistle is placed in the
handle, but a spout was added between 1789 and 1810 with the intention
of turning it into a flagon: on it are engraved the Trinity and
Westminster arms, and in an early catalogue it is called the Busby
cup: its donor is unknown.

There is a curious custom at the high table connected with these
dishes. At the end of dinner on ordinary nights, before grace is said,
a rose-water dish with an empty ewer is placed before the fellow
sitting at the head of each table. I conjecture that this dates from a
time when napkins and forks were unknown, and diners were accustomed
to rinse their hands in water before rising from the table. Now the
appearance of the empty ewer is only a sign that dinner is over. At
feasts the ewer contains rose-water which is poured into the dish and
passed round the table.

We have a fine specimen of a standing salt in a piece associated with
the name of James Duport. Its breadth is nearly ten inches, and its
height, without the handles, seven inches. It was these massive salts,
and not "trencher salts," that were originally used to divide the
company into those that sat above and below the salt; and in the
middle ages the standing salt was generally the most valued single
piece in the house and the chief ornament on the table. The medieval
specimens usually have a cover to protect the salt, and the handles in
specimens like ours are said to have been introduced for a similar
reason, as a napkin can be twisted round them so as to cover the salt,
and thus save it from dust. Our specimen bears the inscription εχετε
εν εαυτοις ἁλας και ειρηνευετε εν αλληλοις, together with a statement
that it was given by Duport. Probably his gift was made in 1665, when
he left the College on his appointment as master of Magdalene. The
piece, however, bears the hall-mark 1733-34; here, and in some other
cases, it would seem that the original piece was exchanged for a new
one, perhaps when repairs were required, and it was the custom in such
circumstances to engrave the old inscription on the new piece of
plate.

In spite of our losses at the end of the eighteenth century some fine
drinking cups and covers still remain in our possession. Notable among
these is one of 1691-92 given by Charles and George Firebrace, one of
1697-98 given by Henry Boyle, and one of 1711-12 given by John Verney.
We have also a cup and cover of 1726 given by the earl of Sandwich,
another of 1729 given by Samuel Husbands, another of 1763 given by
John Damer, another of 1771 given by George Augustus Henry Cavendish,
another of 1776 given by William Greaves, and another of 1780 given by
the earl of Mexborough. To these I may add the Lyndhurst silver-gilt
cup and cover of 1876-77 given by Sir Theodore Martin. All these are
fine specimens of silversmith's work, and can be used at feasts as
loving cups, with the ceremonial customary to such drinking.

The tankards with lids form another striking group of plate, but the
larger ones which contain three quarts or more must be regarded as
being decorative rather than useful. Conspicuous among these pieces is
one, probably made about 1670, given by Thomas Taylor, one of 1698-99
given by Peter Pheasaunt, one of 1699-1700 given by Thomas Alston, one
of 1700-01 given by Thomas Bellot, one of 1739-40 given by Thomas
Foley, one of 1746-47 given by Francis Vernon, one of 1751-52 given by
Charles Paulet, one of 1757-58 given by Edward Fitzgerald, and one of
1762-63 given by Hans Sloane. There is also a fine collection of ale
plate. Of the smaller tankards, stoups, and drinking cups there are
innumerable specimens. I will not dwell longer over our other pieces.
Suffice it is to say that of punch-bowls there are three or four fine
specimens of the eighteenth century, as also various snuff-boxes,
silver trays, etc. Of candlesticks there are between two and three
hundred, many of them beautiful pieces of work. Of ordinary domestic
plate the stock is large.

There is also a good deal of plate which has been given or assigned
for use in the lodge: this includes the Perry silver-gilt dessert
service. In the chapel plate besides the flagons already mentioned
there are two silver-gilt patens of 1661-62, associated in the early
catalogues with the names of John and Bernard Stuart; also an
alms-dish of 1673, and an altar cross given in 1894 and said to be of
Spanish renaissance work.

I add some particulars of thirteen challenge pieces of plate owned
by the Boat and Athletic Clubs: of these, five belong to the First
Trinity Boat Club, and eight to the Athletic Club. These pieces are of
recent make and their chief interest comes from the inscribed names of
the successive holders.

Trinity men will recollect that there are various races arranged each
year by the First Trinity Boat Club, the winners of which receive pots
or other prizes, and that in five of these events, the winners, in
addition to receiving the special prizes, hold challenge pieces on
which are engraved the names of past winners. These challenge pieces
are: A two-handled silver chased cup and stand (hall-mark 1836), held
by the winner of a sculling race (the Macnaughten Sculls) rowed in
the Michaelmas Term, open to all members of the Club who have not
previously won it or the University Colquhoun Sculls. A two-handled
silver cup and stand (hall-mark probably 1857 or 1858), which came to
the club from the now defunct Second Trinity Boat Club, held by the
winner of a sculling race (the Baines Sculls) rowed in the Lent Term,
open to all members who have not previously won it or the Macnaughten
Sculls or the University Colquhoun Sculls. Silver oars (hall-mark
1860) held by the winners of a pair-oared race (the Wyatt Pairs) rowed
in the Michaelmas Term, open to all members who have not previously
won it or the University Magdalene Pairs. Silver oars (hall-mark 1861)
which came to the Club from Second Trinity, held by the winners of a
pair-oared race (the Dodington Pairs) rowed in the Lent Term, open to
all members who have not previously won it or the Wyatt Pairs or the
University Magdalene Pairs. Silver Sculls (hall-mark 1897) held by the
winners of a double sculling race (the Taxis Sculls) rowed in the
Easter Term, open to all members who have not previously won it or the
University Magdalene pairs.

Similarly among the sports arranged each year by the Trinity Athletic
Club are seven events, the winners of which in addition to receiving
special prizes, hold challenge pieces of plate on which are engraved
the names of past winners. These challenge pieces are: A half-fluted
silver bowl and plinth (hall-mark 1887) held by the winner of the mile
race. A half-fluted silver bowl and plinth (hall-mark 1899) held by
the winner of the half-mile race. A silver chased claret jug with
handle (hall-mark 1886) held by the winner of the quarter-mile race.
Four silver candlesticks (hall-mark 1899) held by the winner of the
hundred yards race. A two-handled half-fluted silver cup (hall-mark
1888) held by the winner of the hurdles race. A two-handled silver
bowl (hall-mark 1896) held by the winner of the long jump. A silver
salver (hall-mark 1896) held by the winner of the high jump. Finally
there is a two-handled silver chased cup and plinth (hall-mark 1892)
held by the man who scores most marks in the various events.

It may be thought that I have occupied too much space in giving bare
lists of pieces of plate, but the shapes of some of the pieces are so
good and the surface of old silver, when carefully tended, has such a
beautiful texture that I believe it may be worth calling the attention
of any interested in such things to some of our possessions of this
kind. Only societies and families with continuous records dating from
a distant past can show such collections.




CHAPTER VII.

THE COLLEGE AUDITORS.


There is no reference in our earliest college statutes--those of
1552--to an Auditor, but the extant accounts show that the office
existed from the foundation of the College in 1546. Definite
regulations for the appointment were proposed in the draft statutes of
1554, and were embodied in the statutes of 1560. By these the auditor
was made one of the statutable officers of the Society: the post was
held for long periods, and it was not permissible to perform the
duties by proxy. The statute in question was re-enacted in 1844. By
the statutes of 1861 the office was made annual, and tenable only
during pleasure. It remains annual under the present statutes, but a
definite proviso was inserted in 1882 that it is not tenable by a
fellow or officer of the House, and a clause was introduced providing
for the appointment from among the fellows of an Assessor or Assessors
who should be present during the audit.

From the foundation of the College, its financial year ran from
Michaelmas to Michaelmas, and the audit of each year was concluded in
the following December. At first the annual honorarium of the auditor
seems to have been £10 with an allowance of £2 for travelling
expenses, stationery, etc., but before the end of the sixteenth
century it had been reduced to £5, with an augmentation of £3. 6s. 8d.
and some allowances.

The form of the _declaratio computi_ was much as at present, and
generally, with but small variations, it takes the form now
stereotyped "and so the said A. B. Senior (or Junior) Bursar upon the
foot of this his account for one whole year ending Michaelmas ...
oweth unto the College the sum of...." In some cases, and notably in
the seventeenth century, the sums include fractions of a penny, even
as small as one thirty-second part thereof. Presumably the audit was
always followed by a "feast," as still remains the custom.

Of the occupants of the office from 1546 to 1618 the information in
the college books is incomplete. The only auditors previous to 1618
whose names I have noticed, with the years in which they held office,
are Edward Burnell, 1553, 1561, 1563 and 1564; Adam Winthrop, 1606;
and Richard Brooke, 1614. I have not, however, read the account-books
through from cover to cover, and it may be that there are references
which have escaped me. Luckily Winthrop's diary and some memoranda
from 1595 to 1621 are extant, and contain references to a few earlier
dates. From these we can take our continuous record back to the year
ending Michaelmas 1593, when he was auditor. He resigned in 1610, and
was succeeded by Brooke. Brooke was acting in 1615, and had commons in
1616, and I have no doubt acted in 1617. From 1618 onwards we can,
from one source or another, make out the names of those who held the
office. The handwritings of the earlier auditors have marked
characteristics. They suggest that there was one auditor from 1547 to
1552, another from 1553 to 1578, who must have been Edward Burnell,
another from 1579 to 1591, and another from 1592 to 1609, who must
have been Adam Winthrop. But I present these as mere surmises, and I
do not attempt to go back beyond 1593.

Our roll then is as follows. From 1547 to 1592 we cannot definitely
say more than that Edward Burnell was auditor for a period which
included the years 1553 to 1564, for no doubt his tenure was unbroken.
From 1593 the sequence runs thus:

Adam Winthrop, 1593 (or earlier) to 1609; Richard Brooke, 1610 to
1617; Robert Spicer, 1618 to 1628; Francis Hughes, 1629 to 1668;
Samuel Newton, 1669 to 1717, Newton resigned in 1674, and thereon he
and William Ellis were appointed to the office, with remainder to the
survivor of them, but apparently William Ellis never acted; Denys
L'Isle, 1718 to 1726; William Greaves, 1727 to 1778; Robert Graham,
1779 to 1791; Samuel Knight, 1792 to 1811; Nicholas Conyngham Tindal,
1812 to 1825; James Parke, 1826 to 1828; Andrew Amos, 1829 to 1836;
John George Shaw-Lefevre, 1837 to 1851; George Denman, 1852 to 1862;
George Valentine Yool, 1863 to 1869; Augustus Arthur VanSittart, 1870
to 1881; John Willis Clark, 1882 to 1908. Since 1908 the office has
been held by a professional accountant. The dates given indicate the
ends of the audit year: thus the audit of 1669 was for the year
1668-69. It will be noticed that during the three hundred and sixteen
years from 1593 to 1908, there were, if we omit William Ellis, only
seventeen auditors, giving an average tenure of more than eighteen
years. Of these seventeen auditors at least eleven have been lawyers
and four ultimately rose to the Bench. I add a few biographical notes
on these auditors.

Of Edward Burnell, the earliest holder of the office whose name I have
given, I know nothing. His successor Adam Winthrop, 1548-1623, the son
of a prominent London merchant and reformer, had been admitted as a
fellow-commoner at Magdalene in 1567, and had left the University
without a degree. He had been called to the bar, but did not practise,
and was content to fill the rôle of a well-to-do country squire. He
was an intimate friend of Still, master of Trinity from 1577 to 1593,
whose sister he married in 1574, and whose wife was his connection by
marriage. I conjecture that he owed the office to Still's influence.
Winthrop was a fair scholar, an indifferent poet, and somewhat of a
pedant. His tomb is at Groton, Suffolk. More than one of his
descendants were distinguished. In particular his son, John,
1588-1649, who was admitted to Trinity College in 1602, was the
founder of the well-known American family of this name; and his
great-great-grandson, Sir George Downing was the founder of Downing
College.

Winthrop seems to have done the whole of the audit work at the end of
the Michaelmas term of each year. Thus in 1601 he wrote:

  The ivth of Decemb. I ridde to Cambride & beganne the Auditt the 7th
  beinge Monday. The xiiijth of Decembre I returned from the Auditt &
  did see the Sonne in the Eclips about 12 of the Clock at noone.

Perhaps his resignation was made at the suggestion of the College, for
early in 1610 he wrote:

  Dr Meriton came to speake with me about the resignation of my office
  in Trinity College to Mr Brookes.... I surrendered my Auditorship in
  Trinitye College to the Mr fellows & schollers before a pub.
  notary.... I dyned at Dr Meriton's in Hadley & received of him xxlb
  for my Auditorshippe.... Mr Rich. Brooke the nue Auditor of Trinity
  College was at my house in Groton to whom I dd. divers paper books &
  Roles touchinge his Office.

Of the next three auditors I can discover very little. Richard Brooke
was appointed in 1610. The following conclusion of 8 June 1615, seems
to refer to him, "concluded that Mr Brookes in regard of his paines
taken divers times for the Colledge that he shoulde ... have given him
Twentye pounds," and during his visits in the following year be
allowed commons. We may assume that he held office till the end of
1617. A Richard Brookes had entered at Queens' as a fellow-commoner in
1587, but whether he was the subsequent auditor there is nothing to
show. In 1618 we have the copy of the appointment of Robert Spicer. He
held office till the end of 1628, since a conclusion of 3 June 1629,
appointed in his place Francis Hughes. Hughes, who held the office
till his death in October 1669, was admitted a scholar in 1616,
graduated M.A. in 1623, was one of the esquire-bedells, and occupied
rooms in College at the time of his death.

The next occupant of the office was Samuel Newton, 1629-1718, a
prominent attorney in the town and mayor in 1671. He was not a member
of the University. His diary from 1662 to 1717 preserved in the
library of Downing College, contains an account of his election to the
post in the chapel by the master and seniors, he being present in the
antechapel. He attended next day in his gown, was sworn to the
faithful discharge of his duties, and signed the roll of college
officers. He proved thoroughly efficient. For his services at the
audit in 1669 he received the fee of £5 with the customary
augmentation of £3. 6s. 8d., a sum of £6. 13s. 4d. for engrossing the
audit rolls, which henceforth were kept excellently, a sum of £1 for
preparing a book of arrears, and a sum of £1. 2s. 8d. for stationery.
He also received from the junior bursar, billets of wood of the value
of 6s. 8d.; from the steward, a "warp of lyng" of the value of 6s.
8d.; from the manciple, a "coller of brawne, also a dish of wild fowle
or 6s. 8d."; and from the brewhouse, "2 barrels of strong beere."

In 1674 Newton surrendered his patent of appointment as auditor, but
he was immediately reappointed jointly with his cousin, William Ellis,
with remainder to the survivor of them. They were at the same time
appointed on the same conditions to the office of college registrar,
then vacant by the death of a Mr T. Griffith. According to Newton's
diary, William Ellis proceeded M.A. in 1670, but his name does not
appear in the list of graduati, unless indeed he is the Wm Ellis who
received the degree _per lit. reg._ in 1671. The college account-books
continued to be signed by Newton, and I have not noticed in them
evidence that Ellis ever took any part in the audit. The Society's
solicitors and attorneys have frequently acted as registrars, and it
may be that Ellis was in partnership with Newton, and was for that
reason made with him joint auditor and registrar.

Samuel Newton died in 1718 in his ninetieth year. For the three years,
1715, 1716, and 1717, the books were audited by John Newton,
presumably his son or grandson, as his deputy. No doubt the
arrangement was made in consequence of the failing health of the old
gentleman whose signature in 1714 was very shaky. The appointment of a
deputy was invalid under the statute, but it must have been made with
the approval of Bentley, and perhaps of the seniority. At any rate
John Newton conducted the audit, and signed the books as deputy
auditor.

Newton was succeeded in 1718 as auditor and registrar by Denys L'Isle.
L'Isle had been a fellow-commoner of Trinity Hall, admitted in 1712,
graduated LL.B. in 1715, who had gone down and in 1716 taken his name
off the books. He was a vigorous and not too scrupulous barrister. He
owed his appointment to Bentley, and he showed "extraordinary activity
and zeal in promoting all" his benefactor's "wishes and interests" and
represented him in some of his disputes. Whatever view may be taken of
Bentley's character, no one can justify his conduct in regard to the
college finances. A notable scandal occurred in the audit of 1722. In
the accounts of that year large sums were charged to the College for
works at the lodge and other sums spent by the master which had not
been sanctioned by the Society. Undoubtedly the charges were illegal,
but Bentley and L'Isle refused to allow the accounts to be examined by
the seniority. In fact in this, as in other matters, L'Isle had no
scruple in screening Bentley from the consequences of acts which were
neither legal nor honourable.

L'Isle died in 1727, and was succeeded as auditor, steward of the
courts, and registrar by William Greaves. Greaves had in 1719 migrated
to Clare, Cambridge, from Brasenose, Oxford; he graduated B.A. in
1720, and in 1722 was elected at Clare to a fellowship which he held
till 1742. He was a barrister and an able man: he too owed his office
to Bentley, and acted as his counsel in many of his tortuous
proceedings. Through Bentley's influence Greaves had in 1726 been made
commissary of the University, an office which he held till 1778. The
letters patent to the office of college auditor were made out for the
term of his life, but a question having been raised as to whether this
was statutable, he surrendered them, and the College granted new
patents for the term of fifty years if he should live so long. I
suppose he was duly admitted to the office, for probably an acute
lawyer would have seen to this, but there is no record of the fact in
our books.

Greaves seems to have performed his duties as auditor in an
honourable manner. After the audit of 1778, he surrendered his office
at the close of fifty years' tenure of it: he then received a present
of plate from the College, with their thanks for his long and faithful
services. Six years later he made a donation to the Society of £100 to
found an annual prize for an essay on the character of King William
the Third. After nearly a century it was said that the essayists had
exhausted the subject, and in 1882 the College got leave to substitute
for it one connected with the history of the British Empire.

Robert Graham, 1744-1836, a lawyer of note, succeeded Greaves. Graham
had graduated as third wrangler in 1766, and in the following year had
been elected to a fellowship. He held the office till after the audit
of 1791. He was made a baron of the exchequer in 1799, and proved a
singularly inefficient judge. He retired from the bench in 1827.

Graham's chief distinction is said to have been his urbanity, and at
the Bar it was currently believed that no one but his sempstress had
power to ruffle his equanimity. He was somewhat pompous, and an
adventure of his at the assizes at Newcastle afforded much amusement
to his contemporaries. There, on one occasion just before charging the
grand jury, he tumbled, unnoticed, into the river from the garden of
the house where he lodged, but luckily was hauled out by some passing
watermen. The rough remedies of the quay-side failed to restore
consciousness, and the bystanders, supposing he was drowned, carted
him to a dead-house, where he was stripped and laid out. The coroner's
jury, summoned with unusual celerity, had viewed the body, and were
considering their verdict when, to their surprise he showed signs of
life and came to himself. His position was not altogether dignified,
but realizing at once that it is always incumbent on a judge to move
in state, he was by his directions fetched from the mortuary in the
sheriff's carriage, with the trumpeters, and usual ceremonial.

Of Graham's successor, Samuel Knight, 1755-1829, I know little. He had
been admitted as a pensioner in 1772, became a fellow-commoner in
1774, and graduated in the poll in 1776. Apparently he had no special
qualifications for the post beyond being a pleasant member of society.
He resigned in 1812, and died in 1829.

After Knight's resignation, the post was offered to Nicholas Conyngham
Tindal, 1776-1846, a lawyer of distinction. He had graduated in 1799
as eighth wrangler, was a Chancellor's medalist, and had been elected
to a fellowship in 1801, which, as he did not take orders, he had
vacated in due course in accordance with the provisions of the
Elizabethan statutes. The plan of offering the post to a
distinguished past fellow now became the custom, and all the auditors
hereafter mentioned were past fellows of the college.

Tindal was one of the counsel for queen Caroline; he is celebrated in
the history of the courts for having secured to a criminal client the
right of wager of battle, which had long fallen into disuse but had
not been abolished by statute. He was member for the University from
1827 to 1829 in which year he was made chief justice of the Common
Pleas; he held that office till his death in 1846. Though not
specially successful as an advocate, he had a profound knowledge of
law and was an excellent judge. His enormous dimensions are
commemorated in a print in my possession with the inscription "Judges
of A Size," representing him standing by Joshua Williams one of his
colleagues on assize, who was very diminutive; probably this is an
ancient joke.

The next auditor was James Parke, 1782-1868, a lawyer of even greater
distinction. He had graduated in 1803 as fifth wrangler, and had been
Craven scholar, Browne's medalist and Chancellor's medalist. In 1804
he had been elected to a fellowship. He was one of the counsel briefed
against queen Caroline. He was made a judge in 1828, and of course
then resigned the office of auditor, which he thus held for only three
years.

Parke had a profound knowledge of the common law, and admired, and was
a rigid adherent of, ancient forms and customs. The fact was well
known, and led to a curious scene, when on one occasion, while giving
a judgment, he fainted. Cold water and smelling salts were applied
without success, whereon a somewhat malicious colleague brought from
an adjacent room an ancient volume of reports, black with the dust of
ages, and banged it under the nostrils of the judge. It may have been
a coincidence, but Parke at once revived, and in a few minutes was
able to proceed with the business in hand.

At one time when Parke was trying a criminal case the prisoner
confessed his crime to his advocate, who thereupon (most improperly)
acquainted the judge with the fact and asked his advice. Parke rebuked
the barrister for informing him of the prisoner's guilt, but added
that counsel was not the less bound to defend his client to the best
of his ability. The case has been often cited, and states the practice
of the bar; it being of course assumed that nothing is said or done
for the defence which an honourable man might not say or do.

Parke's subsequent career served to settle a constitutional question
of great importance. In 1856 he was created Baron Wensleydale with a
life peerage. It was decided that the power of the crown to create
life peerages had been lost by disuse. He was then made a baron with
the usual remainder in tail male.

Parke was followed as auditor by Andrew Amos, 1791-1860, also a lawyer
of distinction. He had graduated as fifth wrangler in 1813, and in
1815 had been elected to a fellowship. He was appointed auditor in
1829. He had a large arbitration practice, acted on the Criminal Law
Commission, and was professor of English Law in London. In 1837 he was
appointed legal member of the Indian Council, and on his departure for
the East had to resign his office in the college. On the first vacancy
after his return to England, he was, in 1848, elected Downing
Professor of Laws in Cambridge, and occupied the chair until his
death.

Amos was succeeded by John George Shaw-Lefevre, 1797-1879.
Shaw-Lefevre had been senior wrangler and first Smith's prize man in
1818, and had been elected to a fellowship in the following year. Like
his predecessors he was a barrister, but most of his time was taken up
with duties connected with public departments. He settled the county
divisions under the Reform Act of 1832, and was a member of numerous
Commissions, notably those connected with compensation for the
abolition of slavery, with the Poor Law Act, with the creation of
South Australia, with ecclesiastical affairs, and with the Indian
Civil Service: till 1875 he was busily engaged in public affairs. He
stood unsuccessfully for parliament in the university contest of 1847.
He resigned the auditorship after the audit of 1851. His tenure of the
post is commemorated by his gift of the chandelier which hangs in the
large combination room.

The next auditor was the Hon. George Denman, 1819-1896, also a lawyer.
Denman had been senior classic in 1842, and had been elected to a
fellowship in the following year. He had always kept up his connection
with the College, where he had numerous friends. He became auditor in
1852. Like his predecessor he stood unsuccessfully for parliament as a
representative of the University: this was in 1856. Subsequently he
was appointed counsel to the University. He entered parliament in
1859, and owing to press of work gave up his college office at the
close of the audit of 1862. After a distinguished legal career he was
raised in 1872 to the bench. He was a good scholar, had a fine
presence, and to the end of his life was popular with all classes of
Cambridge society.

If I may trust my memory Denman told me that among his annual
perquisites as auditor was a case of audit ale, and that on one
occasion he gave it to Livingstone who he knew would appreciate it.
The case travelled with the explorer through Africa, and as long as
the ale lasted glasses of it were circulated, to the great
satisfaction of the natives, whenever solemn treaties were ratified.

The next holder of the office was George Valentine Yool, 1829-1897,
a chancery barrister, who had been third wrangler and second Smith's
prizeman in 1851, and had been elected to a fellowship in 1853. Yool
took but little part in public affairs. He was appointed auditor in
1863, and gave up the office at the end of 1869.

After Yool's resignation the College reverted to its former practice,
and appointed as auditor a resident, Augustus Arthur VanSittart.
VanSittart had been bracketed senior classic in 1847, and had been
elected to a fellowship in the following year. After once standing
unsuccessfully for parliament, he devoted himself to literary work,
and among other things collected and collated the various readings of
the New Testament. His annual speech at the audit feast, wherein he
gave a witty sketch of the more interesting developments of academic
life during the preceding year, was one of the features of the time,
and served somewhat the same purpose as the Tripos verses of earlier
ages. He held the office till his death in the spring of 1882. He was
wealthy, and a most generous benefactor of the Fitzwilliam Museum and
other Cambridge institutions.

On VanSittart's death the post was given to John Willis Clark,
1833-1910. Clark had come up to Trinity in 1852, obtained a first
class in the classical tripos, 1856, and was elected to a fellowship
in 1858. He made his home in Cambridge, and his unceasing activities
in zoological, library, and theatrical matters are chronicled in the
local records. He completed the _Architectural History of the
University_--a permanent and invaluable record of Cambridge
history--which had been commenced by his uncle, and wrote on various
library and antiquarian subjects. He held the registraryship of the
University from 1891 to his death in 1910.

Clark vacated the office of auditor in 1908, and since then the
College has appointed to the post a professional accountant.




CHAPTER VIII.

WREN'S DESIGNS FOR THE COLLEGE LIBRARY.


In 1914 the College obtained an interesting series of photographs of
Wren's original drawings and plans for our library in Nevile's Court.
They will well repay inspection by those who are interested in our
history or in architecture.

The present library is the third building assigned by Trinity for the
purpose. During the first half-century of its existence the Society
used the library[26] of King's Hall, a good first-floor room, some
twenty feet long by ten feet broad, which had been built in 1416-21
near the north-west corner of the cloister court of that House. This
room was connected with the old oratory of King's Hall by a gallery
over the west cloister.

Soon after the foundation of Trinity the provision of a larger library
was contemplated, and in the order (about providing building materials
for the chapel) of queen Elizabeth of 1560, it is said that its
erection had been already begun. In fact however it was then only
under discussion.

[Illustration: Wren's Second Design for the College Library.
Exterior.]

[Illustration: Wren's First Design for the College Library. Exterior.]

[Illustration: Wren's First Design for the College Library. Interior.]

[Illustration: Wren's Design for a Senate House.]

Our predecessors, in their arrangements for the "reconcination" or
rebuilding of the Great Court, naturally attached great
importance to not interfering with King Edward's Tower which had long
been the chief entrance to King's Hall and then stood near the present
sundial. A suggested way of working this Tower into the scheme of the
court is shown on the plan which hangs on the staircase leading to the
library annexe; in this, a block one hundred feet long and thirty-four
feet broad, was to be built over an open colonnade running eastwards
from the Tower and ending in front of and a few yards from the Great
Gate. The first floor of this block might have been used for the new
library; or alternatively it might have been used for chambers, and
the new library built elsewhere, for instance, as was suggested, on
the site of the range of chambers which now stretches from the chapel
to the turret staircase adjoining the lodge.

Neither of these proposals was then adopted, and our second library
was not erected till Nevile, between 1594 and 1600, took the matter in
hand. He provided for it a room seventy-five feet long and thirty feet
broad on the second floor of the range connecting the Clock Tower and
the lodge; it has since been converted into chambers.

Less than a century after Nevile's library was finished, the Society
again found it necessary to provide more book accommodation, and the
result is the impressive and excellently designed building which
stands on the west side of Nevile's Court. According to tradition, its
erection, commenced in February 1676, was due to Barrow, then master
of the College, who in the previous year had pressed the other heads
of Houses to provide a room worthy of the University for its meetings,
and urged that it should be of the best. Such schemes are expensive
and cannot be effected without public spirit. Caution, it is said,
carried the day, whereon Barrow, piqued at this faint-heartedness,
declared that he would go to Trinity, "lay out the foundations of a
building to enlarge his back court, and close it with a stately
library, which should be more magnificent and costly than what he had
proposed.... And he was as good as his word, for that very afternoon
he ... staked out the very foundation upon which the building now
stands."

The story may be substantially true, for the long-cherished idea of
building a university theatre and library was then in the hands of a
syndicate: on the other hand the extant speech of Barrow in which he
put forward his policy was not delivered till the Easter term 1676,
and Wren's designs for such a building are referred to the year 1678
and indicate that the scheme had not been then abandoned. But whether
the anecdote be true or not, we may take it that the erection of our
library was due to Barrow's initiative, and that he personally raised
a considerable sum towards its cost.

Sir Christopher Wren, a warm personal friend of Barrow, was selected
as the architect, and placed his services at the disposal of the
College without remuneration. His original drawings are included in a
collection of his designs preserved at All Souls' College, Oxford,
and by the kindness of that Society we have been allowed to take
photographs of the plans which concern us. These relate to two plans
for our library and one for a university commencement-house. The two
plans for Trinity were made not later than 1675; they may have been
submitted as alternatives, but there is a tradition that the second
design was prepared only after the first had been rejected.

Nevile's Court, as now arranged, contains three staircases on each of
its sides, is closed on the east by the hall and small combination
room block, and on the west by the library. In 1675 only two of the
staircases on each side had been built, and the western ends of these
were connected by a blank wall pierced in the middle by a gate, which
is believed to have been later removed, stone by stone, and finally
placed as the entrance to the College at the bottom of Trinity lane,
where it now stands. Beyond this wall and between it and the river was
the college tennis court. The land between Nevile's Court and the
river was selected as the site of the library.

Wren's first design shows a double cylindrical shell about sixty-five
feet across inside and ninety feet high, surmounted by a dome and
entered through a six-columned Ionic portico facing Nevile's Court. On
the ground floor was a lobby round which were stone seats. Above this
the inside of the inner cylindrical shell was lined with bookshelves,
and for convenience of approach there were three galleries. The room
was lighted by windows in the dome and a superimposed lantern. The
east side of the portico was half-way between the western ends of the
court, and these ends were connected with the body of the library by
low curved walls surmounted by iron rails. This building is described
as "a very beautiful and most commodious model," but it strikes the
ordinary layman as poor in design, and I do not think that all Wren's
genius could have made it other than unsatisfactory. Why it was
rejected we do not know, but few will doubt that the decision was
wise.

Wren's second or alternative design, which was adopted, shows a lofty
oblong room about one hundred and fifty feet long by thirty-eight feet
broad supported on a colonnade. Several of his drawings for this were
engraved for the _Architectural History of Cambridge_ by Willis and
Clark, but the photographic reproductions of the originals--some with
Wren's notes attached--which are now available have an interest of
their own. A careful study will show details which were subsequently
modified. The present library was placed to the west of the court as
then built, and the rows of chambers on each side were extended to
meet it. It is well-known that the shelves, cases, benches, tables,
and book-rests now used were designed by Wren, and his drawings for
them are reproduced in this series of photographs. The removal of all
the bookcases except those fixed against the walls would enable us to
judge the appearance intended by Wren. How fine the effect must have
been, may be gathered from the plate in Le Keux's _Memorials_ or the
engraving in the _University Almanack_ of 1852.

Among Wren's plans is also one for "a Theatre or Commencement-House
with a Library annexed, according to an Intention for the University
of Cambridge, about the year 1678, but not executed." Whether this
represents a sketch of the general plan which it is said that Barrow
had suggested to the heads of Houses in 1675 it is impossible to say.
The erection of a building on these lines might have been costly, but
the result would have been a valuable addition to the architecture of
Cambridge.

I published in the _Trinity Magazine_ in 1914 the elevations of our
library according to Wren's two plans and of his suggested
Commencement or Senate House. I reprint these here (see above,
pp. 145-148), but add nothing more as it is intended shortly to
reproduce in book-form various drawings on the subject made by Wren.


[Footnote 26: There was an earlier library in King's Hall but we do
not know where it was situated.]




CHAPTER IX.

A CHRISTMAS JOURNEY IN 1319.


In the Record Office in London are preserved some money accounts[27]
concerned with a visit of the scholars of King's Hall to York at
Christmas in the year 13 Edward II, that is, in 1319. The following
analysis gives the route followed by one section of the party and the
expenses of the journey: it is a valuable record of the method and
cost of travelling in medieval times.

By way of preamble, I may say that the origin of King's Hall is to be
found in the establishment at Cambridge, in 1317, by Edward II, of a
body of Scholars or King's Children; that they were regarded as part
of the royal household; and that the nominations to the office of
warden and to scholarships were reserved to the king. King's Hall
was dissolved in 1546, and its buildings and property assigned by
Henry VIII to Trinity College.

Early in December 1319, the warden and scholars were ordered to spend
the coming Christmas with the court, then at York, and the sheriff of
Cambridgeshire was directed to provide for their journey. During the
preceding Michaelmas term thirty-three members of the House had been
in residence, and all of them went to York.

The names of the members of the House in 1319 are immaterial to our
story, but I venture to give them, for these students lived here
nearly six centuries ago, and doubtless had hopes, plans, and
ambitions at bottom much the same as we have. They were, in order of
seniority, John de Bagshot the warden, Nicholas de Durnford, Nicholas
de Rome, David de Winchester, William Pour, Richard Pour, Nicholas
Pour, John de Aston, John de Torterold, James de Torterold, Robert
de Immeworth, Thomas de Windsor, Walter de Nottingham, Roger Parker,
John de Kelsey, John de Hull, Edward de Kingston, Hugh de Sutton,
Philip de London, John de Salisbury, Richard de Salisbury, Robert
de Beverley, John Fort, Ralph de Gretford, Henry de Gretford, Nicholas
Parker, Nicholas Pull, Richard de Berwick, Andrew Rosekin, Thomas
Griffon, John Griffon, William Draghswerd, and John de Woodstock. It
will be noticed that some of the students are designated by surnames
which were already coming into use and some by place names: the latter
show from what a wide area the scholars were drawn.

For the purpose of travelling the Society was divided into two
sections, both of which started from Cambridge on Thursday[28],
20 December. One party, comprising the warden, John de Bagshot, and
six of the scholars, went on horseback, and arrived at York on
Christmas eve. Their journey thus occupied five days and they covered
about thirty-five miles a day; of it we have no particulars, save that
the warden paid £1. 3s. 4d. for the hire in Cambridge of seven
hackneys, and was allowed £1. 9s. 2d. for the other expenses, namely
10d. a day for each member of the party. The remaining twenty-six
scholars travelled under the care of one of their number, John
de Aston, and arrived at York on 28 December. They took with them
seven and a half lengths of cloth with the furs thereto belonging, and
four grooms, but whether the grooms went the whole way is not clear.
It is with this nine days' journey that I here deal.

The cloth and furs which had been purchased on behalf of the crown
from merchants at Bury were valuable. The former was red in colour
(_de blodes mixto_) and had cost £21. 2s. 6d.: the latter comprised
twenty-one lamb skins, bought for £2. 19s. 6d. and six budge skins,
bought for £1. The carriage of these goods must have been a serious
hindrance to rapid travelling.

The first two days, Thursday and Friday, 20 and 21 December, were
occupied in the journey from Cambridge to Spalding. This was made in
two hired boats (with the services of six men), for which the charge
was 5s. On 20 December, the travellers paid 2d. for porterage of their
goods to the boats at Cambridge, 1s. 7d. for bread, 2s. for beer, 1s.
for herrings, 1s. 4d. for hard fish and codlings, and 4d. for fuel. On
21 December they paid 1s. 5d. for bread, 2s. 2d. for beer, 1s. 7d. for
herrings and other fish, 3d. for cheese, 2d. for porterage from the
boats at Spalding, 5½d. for fuel and candles, and 8d. for beds at
Spalding.

On Saturday, 22 December, they travelled to Boston. On this day, they
paid 2s. for hiring two carts for carrying the cloth and fourteen of
the scholars, and 3s. for twelve hackneys for the rest of the party.
They also spent 1s. 4d. for bread, 1s. 11d. for beer, 2s. 3d. for
herrings and other fish, 5d. for fuel and candles, and 8d. for beds
at Boston.

The next two days, Sunday and Monday, 23 and 24 December, were
occupied in the journey to Lincoln which was performed in a single
large boat. On 23 December, they paid 5s. for the hire of this boat,
4d. for straw to spread on it, 2d. for porterage to the boat, 1s. 6d.
for bread, 2s. 7d. for beer, 2s. 4d. for meat, 1s. 6¾d. for eight
hens, and 6d. for fuel. On 24 December, they paid 1s. 2d. for bread,
2s. for beer, 2s. 1d. for herrings and other fish, 9d. for eels, 3d.
for porterage from the boat at Lincoln, 6½d. for fuel and candles, and
8d. for beds at Lincoln.

Tuesday, being Christmas Day, was spent quietly at Lincoln. Their
expenses for the day were 1s. 4d. for bread, 2s. 1d. for beer, 2s. 3d.
for meat, 1s. 1¼d. for five hens, 7½d. for candles and fuel, and 8d.
for beds.

On Wednesday, 26 December, the party travelled to Torksey, making the
journey in two boats hired at Lincoln. On this day, they paid 2s. 8d.
for the hire of the boats, 3d. for porterage to the boats, 1s. 8d. for
bread, 2s. 3d. for beer, 2s. 1d. for meat, 7d. for eggs, 4d. for fuel
and candles, and 8d. for beds at Torksey.

The next two days, Thursday and Friday, 27 and 28 December, were
occupied in the journey from Torksey to York, which was made in a
large boat hired at Torksey. On 27 December, they paid 6s. for the
hire of this boat, 2d. for porterage to the boat at Torksey, 1s. 7d.
for bread, 2s. 6d. for beer, 1s. 10d. for meat. On 28 December, they
paid 1s. for bread, 1s. 5d. for beer, 1s. 4d. for herrings and other
fish, and 2d. for porterage of their goods at York.

The total cost of the journey came to £4. 5s. 8½d., and this was
repaid to the warden from the royal exchequer on 31 December. On the
opposite page is a summary of the daily expenditure described above.

                  |Dec. |Dec.  |Dec. |Dec.  |Dec.  |Dec.  |Dec. |Dec. |Dec.
                  |  20.|   21.|  22.|   23.|   24.|   25.|  26.|  27.|  28.
                  |s. d.|s. d. |s. d.|s. d. |s. d. |s. d. |s. d.|s. d.|s. d.
  Hire of Boats   | 5  0| ...  | ... | 5  0 | ...  | ...  | 2  8| 6  0| ...
  Straw           | ... | ...  | ... |    4 | ...  | ...  | ... | ... | ...
  Porterage       |    2|    2 | ... |    2 |    3 | ...  |    3|    2|    2
  Hire of Carts   | ... | ...  | 2  0| ...  | ...  | ...  | ... | ... | ...
  Hire of Hackneys| ... | ...  | 3  0| ...  | ...  | ...  | ... | ... | ...
  Bread           | 1  7| 1  5 | 1  4| 1  6 | 1  2 | 1  4 | 1  8| 1  7| 1  0
  Beer            | 2  0| 2  2 | 1 11| 2  7 | 2  0 | 2  1 | 2  3| 2  6| 1  5
  Hard Fish, etc. | 1  4| ...  | ... | ...  | ...  | ...  | ... | ... | ...
  Herrings, etc.  | 1  0| 1  7 | 2  3| ...  | 2  1 | ...  | ... | ... | 1  4
  Eels            | ... | ...  | ... | ...  |    9 | ...  | ... | ... | ...
  Meat            | ... | ...  | ... | 2  4 | ...  | 2  3 | 2  1| 1 10| ...
  Hens            | ... | ...  | ... | 1  6¾| ...  | 1  1¼| ... | ... | ...
  Eggs            | ... | ...  | ... | ...  | ...  | ...  |    7| ... | ...
  Cheese          | ... |    3 | ... | ...  | ...  | ...  | ... | ... | ...
  Fuel and Candles|    4|    5½|    5|    6 |    6½|    7½|    4| ... | ...
  Beds            | ... |    8 |    8| ...  |    8 |    8 |    8| ... | ...
                  |-----|------|-----|------|------|------|-----|-----|-----
                  |11  5| 6  8½|11  7|13 11¾| 7  5½| 8  0¾|10  6|12  1| 3 11

There are no records of the expenses of the Society during the time
the members were at York; but presumably while there, they were
treated as members of the royal household. Their visit, however, was
not devoid of incident since a warrant was issued against one of them,
Robert de Beverley, for having joined with the prior of the preaching
friars of Pontefract in an assault on a certain William Hardy: the
student was left behind at York, and there disappears from our
history. Two other members of the House, Edward de Kingston and David
de Winchester, were also left in the city, of whom probably at least
one was concerned in this disturbance. One new member, Warin Trot, was
admitted at York. These changes reduced the numbers to thirty-one. Of
these thirty-one members, twenty-one, under the guidance of John
de Aston, came back to Cambridge on the festival of St Fabian and
St Sebastian (_i.e._ 20 January), while the warden and the remaining
nine scholars, among whom Trot was included, arrived on 9 February,
and from these dates their stipends in Cambridge during the Lent Term,
1320, were reckoned.

Why the king summoned the members of the House to York at so
considerable cost I cannot say, but I think the detailed statement of
how most of them travelled and their expenses on the journey are
interesting.


[Footnote 27: _Exchequer Accounts_, 552/10.]

[Footnote 28: In my original paper the days of the week were given
incorrectly.]




CHAPTER X.

AN OUTLINE OF THE COLLEGE STORY[29].


I have been asked to take you round Trinity College to-morrow, and by
way of preface to say to-night something about its history. The first
of these tasks, to anyone who lives here, is not difficult, but it is
far from easy to give, in forty minutes, a sketch of a history
covering centuries of academic life and involving references to the
lives of many distinguished scholars and men of affairs. If I confined
myself to an account of the buildings the problem would be simpler,
but though they must form the chief topic of our talk to-morrow, I
would prefer to-day to say something about the growth of the College.
On these lines then I proceed, though necessarily in an incomplete
way, to state the outline of our story.

2. Trinity College was founded in 1546, just about half-way back in
the history of the University. Of those pre-Trinity days I will only
say that the University arose about the end of the twelfth century,
and that it was nearly a hundred years after its establishment before
the first college was founded. Colleges were erected for the benefit
of selected scholars who were maintained at the expense of the
foundation, and throughout the middle ages, most of the students lived
in Private Hostels. In Tudor times undergraduates who paid their own
expenses were admitted to colleges, and finally, every student was
required to be a member of one of these Houses: the peculiar
collegiate character of Oxford and Cambridge dates from this change.
I need hardly add that women were not (and are not) admissible as
members of the University, and that in former days teachers and
students alike were unmarried.

3. Towards the close of his reign, Henry VIII determined to found a
college at Cambridge which should promote his views on religion and
the new learning. He decided to use for the purpose the buildings and
land occupied or owned by two of the chief medieval colleges, King's
Hall and Michael-House. Accordingly, under parliamentary powers, he
compelled those Societies to surrender to him their charters and
possessions, purchased such small parts of our present Great Court as
did not belong to them, and gave all this property to his new college
together with large revenues from religious houses which he had
recently dissolved. The proceedings were high-handed, but we may say
that the result justified him. It is believed that, during these
proceedings, the university careers of a few of the students, at any
rate of King's Hall, were not interrupted, and that thus our academic
life runs without a break from the days of Edward II to the present
time. Most of the buildings of Michael-House have now disappeared, but
our connection with King's Hall is still evident through the remains
of its Cloister Court, our Great Gate which bears an inscription
commemorating the permanent establishment of King's Hall by
Edward III, and our Clock Tower on which is a statue of that monarch.
To this group of buildings we must first direct attention to-morrow.

4. Trinity was far larger than the colleges to whose buildings and
property it succeeded. Of course it has had ups and downs in its
career, but it has generally occupied and still occupies a predominant
position in the University. Thus in 1564, its residents numbered three
hundred and six out of a total of one thousand two hundred and
sixty-seven in the University, while last October [1905], it had five
hundred and sixty-eight undergraduates out of a total of two thousand
eight hundred and thirty-five in the University, and two hundred
resident graduates out of one thousand and five in the University: we
now confine our normal entry to under two hundred a year, and as long
as this is so, our numbers cannot exceed a certain limit which we
have long reached, so, as the University grows, the percentage of
students on our boards decreases. The College has always recognized
that it was its duty to be a centre of learning as well as one of
higher education, and thanks to its traditions and the large number of
resident fellows, it has been able to fulfil this double duty.

5. For the first few years after its foundation, Trinity was occupied
in settling the many problems which arise in a new foundation. As far
as accommodation went, the buildings of King's Hall and Michael-House
were connected, and sufficed for immediate needs. Naturally the
protestant character of the foundation given by Henry was emphasized
by the advisers of Edward VI, the altar in the chapel being removed
and a communion table set up in Huguenot fashion in the middle of the
building. Queen Mary increased the foundation, and took a warm
interest in its affairs; of course the Roman service was then
restored. Under Elizabeth the Anglican services were resumed, and she
completed the erection of the present chapel which had been begun by
her sister: it stands to-day externally much in its original form,
though the interior scheme of decoration is different. We may leave
till to-morrow the description of it and college doings connected
therewith. This first chapter of our history ends in 1560 when the
constitution of the College was definitely established in a form
which remained practically unaltered till 1861.

6. The next decade was critical. Many of those who had adopted the
reformed religion desired further changes on presbyterian lines, and
Cambridge, which had taken so prominent a part in the reformation, was
their chief intellectual stronghold. Their leader was Cartwright, a
fellow of Trinity, and their chief opponent was Whitgift, the master
of the College: thus a contest of national importance was mixed up
with college politics and carried on partly within the college walls.
Whitgift's powers as master were large, and he strained them to the
utmost to remove from the House those who opposed him; times, however,
were revolutionary and public opinion condoned and even approved his
actions. At any rate victory remained with him and his party in the
College, the University, and the State, and the position of the Church
of England between Rome and Geneva is that for which he fought.

7. Whitgift acted as tutor to some of the students, among whom were
Francis Bacon and his brother Anthony: you will see the portrait of
the former (as also that of Whitgift) to-morrow, together with those
of his contemporaries, Edward Coke subsequently the great lawyer, and
Robert Devereux earl of Essex the ill-fated favourite of Elizabeth.
By a happy accident some of Whitgift's tutorial ledgers have been
preserved, and we have in them details of the expenditure of his
pupils, which, combined with information from other sources, enables
us to give a fairly complete account of their daily work, prayers,
meals, and amusements[30]. A usual age for commencing residence was
fifteen or sixteen, and it would seem that students then (though of
course subject in many things to reasonable restraints) were allowed
that liberty of action which in my opinion is, even though sometimes
misused, an essential feature of university education as opposed to
the control of the pupil's doings in every hour of the day which is
common in many schools. In 1577 Whitgift accepted a bishopric: an
eloquent farewell sermon preached in College from 2 Corinthians,
chapter 13, verse 2, revealed sincere affection for the place and
moved his audience, "insomuch that there were scarce any drie eyes to
be found amongst the whole number." He left the House prosperous and
of high repute.

8. In 1593 Nevile was appointed master, and took in hand the needed
reconstruction of the buildings. It had from the first been
recognized that the site offered opportunities for the erection of
buildings worthy of the reputation of the College, and he realized how
much the effect would depend on making the court large, and above all
on keeping the chamber frontage only two storeys high with attics
above. The Great Court as it stands to-day is his creation; the only
obvious defect in it is the ugly block built in the south-west corner
in 1770 to replace Nevile's set of combination rooms which had an
elevation agreeing generally with that of the master's lodge, but
enriched by a large projecting trefoil oriel. The hall, kitchens,
combination rooms, and lodge form another group of buildings to which
we must pay attention to-morrow: the first two of these are in the
form left by Nevile. The blazoned glass in the hall and our collection
of pictures in these rooms, especially the portraits of Henry VIII,
Mary, and Elizabeth, all of whom have played an important part in our
history, will well repay your study. Nevile also built, at his own
cost, part of the court situated on the west side of the hall. This
too we shall see to-morrow on our way to the library: in his day, the
court was closed on the river side by a low wall, in the middle of
which stood the stone gateway now used as the entrance to the College
from Trinity Lane, and beyond this wall were the tennis courts and
paddocks.

9. The prince of Wales, afterwards Charles I, came to the College to
inspect these alterations, and he was followed later by James I. These
visits are commemorated by the statues of James, his wife, and Charles
placed on the west side of the Great Gate. The king was so pleased
with his entertainment that he repeated his visit on three subsequent
occasions. Of Nevile, one of his contemporaries wrote, "He never had
his like for a splendid courteous and bounteous gentleman," and the
College still gratefully honours his memory. He was trusted and
esteemed by Elizabeth, and when dying she selected him to carry to
Scotland the fateful letter in which she nominated James I to succeed
her. If you go into the dining room of the lodge you will see Nevile's
portrait, hung in the place of honour over the mantelpiece,
representing him as holding this letter in one hand.

10. You must not think that under Nevile's rule the energies of the
College were wholly directed to material ends. In a memorandum of 1607
on the use of college emoluments for students, he was able to say that
of the higher church officials of the day, eleven deans, seven
bishops, and the two archbishops, were drawn from Trinity. In academic
distinctions, in legal appointments, and in statesmanship its records
were equally satisfactory: so the College was worthily maintaining its
tradition of service in church and state. Under his immediate
successors the College entered on a period of steady prosperity. In
the next generation, however, the shadows of the civil disturbances of
the seventeenth century began to fall; theological disputes increased,
scholarship in other subjects received but scanty attention, and a
general slackness in intellectual pursuits was visible, though it is
fair to say that among the students of the time were three or four who
later deservedly acquired reputation as poets. Among the latter I
particularize George Herbert, Abraham Cowley, and Andrew Marvell;
Dryden entered a few years later.

11. On the outbreak of civil war the town was occupied by the
parliamentary forces, troops were quartered in the College, and a good
deal of damage done to the fabric. In 1644 a large number of the
fellows were expelled, their places being filled by zealots of but
slight education. It may be put to the credit of a few who were left,
notably Duport and Ray, that in this time of stress they devoted
themselves to maintaining the standard of scholarship. On the
restoration such of the expelled fellows as were still alive and
unmarried resumed office. They decided that there should be no
retaliations, and that all those nominated to fellowships under the
commonwealth should be allowed to remain, provided only they did not
preach in the chapel unless they were members of the Church of
England: that was a noble reply to the wrongs suffered.

12. The College took pride in resuming at once its position in the
world of letters and science, and the following years are famous for
the work of Pearson and Barrow, two great divines of the time, and
above all of Isaac Newton. The influence of the last-named philosopher
on the studies and intellectual life of Cambridge was far reaching.
His discoveries in pure mathematics, mechanics, physics, and dynamical
astronomy were of the utmost importance, and made Cambridge the centre
of mathematical work in England. I will show you to-morrow the rooms
he occupied and in which he wrote his famous _Principia_. The
staircase on which these rooms are situated has had other
distinguished occupants: the rooms on the ground floor on the
right-hand side on entering it were occupied by Thackeray, and
subsequently by the late astronomer-royal; those on the opposite side
by Macaulay; the rooms on the first floor next the gate which once had
been occupied by Isaac Newton, were used later by Lightfoot, the
theologian, and Jebb, the Greek scholar; and those on the opposite
side by Sir James Frazer, who has done so much to investigate the
beliefs of primitive man. This is an interesting group of men, but in
fact there are few rooms in College which have not been inhabited at
some time by those who have made their names famous.

13. Barrow held the mastership from 1673 to 1677. On his initiative
the College erected, on the west side of Nevile's Court, the
magnificent library which is now stored with literary treasures. This
is another building to which we must pay attention to-morrow, and with
it we may associate the adjoining chambers. From the close of the
seventeenth century onwards we can describe life in College,
especially among undergraduates, in considerable detail. The usual age
of entry had risen to seventeen or eighteen. To the dons the College
offered a comfortable home until an opportunity occurred of taking a
college living, and it must be admitted that some were beginning to be
content to consider it as nothing more. Materials for the history of
the time and the following century have been published by Christopher
Wordsworth.

14. Towards the close of the seventeenth century, the number of
entries fell; this was attributed, and no doubt correctly, to the rise
to office in College of those fellows appointed by mandatory letters
from James II--he having filled every fellowship that became vacant
during his reign. The history of the Society during the early years of
the eighteenth century may be dismissed with the briefest notice, for
college energies were largely occupied by domestic disputes, and the
number of residents still further decreased: these misfortunes were
mainly due to the scandals inseparably associated with the name of
Bentley. Bentley held the mastership from 1700 to 1742: his critical
work can hardly be over-praised, but his career here was marked by
malversations and many dishonourable transactions. The only scholars
of the time I need mention are Cotes and Robert Smith who were
mathematicians of repute. The latter of these scholars, when master,
did something to restore orderly government and discipline.

15. It was not until near the close of the century that the College
recovered from the taint of Bentley's misrule, and scholarship again
flourished within our walls: among the residents of the time was
Porson, whose wit and conversation must have been delightful features
of the High Table of his day--he lived in K 5, Great Court.
Mathematics now afforded the chief avenue to distinction, but some
acquaintance with classics and moral philosophy was also obligatory.
This period is famous for the number of eminent judges educated in the
College: the strict training in formal logic and geometry required for
success in the mathematical tripos being especially favourable to
legal work. Out of eleven such Trinity judges of the time the names
of Tindal, Pollock, Maule, Lyndhurst, Wensleydale, and Cranworth are
still remembered. Socially, manners were generally coarser than at any
time during the previous century or than later; though the revival of
religion under the influence of Simeon did something to ameliorate
matters.

16. Unlike its predecessor the nineteenth century was one of unbroken
progress in college achievements and reputation. Near its commencement
two internal changes of some importance were introduced in the
imposition of an entrance examination test and of a limit to the
number of those admitted. None the less our numbers increased, and in
1823-25, another court (the New Court) was built on the south side of
that erected by Nevile. At this time, conspicuous among the resident
fellows were Sedgwick the geologist, Peacock the mathematician,
Scholefield, Hare, and Thirlwall, Macaulay the historian, and Airy the
astronomer: it would be difficult to exaggerate their influence on the
intellectual life of the College and University. The undergraduate
society a few years later also numbered a group of men of exceptional
power, notably Trench afterwards archbishop of Dublin, Thackeray,
Fitzgerald, Monckton Milnes (Lord Houghton), Spedding, Arthur Hallam,
Kinglake the historian, the three Tennysons (Alfred, Charles, and
Frederick), and Thompson; while a little later came Alford,
Lushington, Grote, Tom Taylor, Burnand, and Francis Galton. Materials
left by these men, and books like J.M.F. Wright's _Alma Mater_,
C.A. Bristed's _Five years in an English University_, Leslie Stephen's
_Sketches from Cambridge by a Don_, and W. Everett's _On the Cam_,
give us full information of college life during the middle of the
century. In connection with the social life of the early half of the
nineteenth century I should note that athletic clubs now began to be
formed--the First Trinity Boat Club, constituted in 1825, being the
earliest. These societies led to the formulation of definite rules for
various forms of sport, and to much more attention being paid to
out-door games. The subsequent growth of organized recreations of this
kind, increasingly developed in recent years, will strike the future
historian as one of the outstanding features of the last century.

17. In 1840 Whewell was appointed master. He was of commanding
abilities and exercised extraordinary influence: to him more than to
any other single individual is due that development of scientific
studies at Cambridge which has been so marked in the recent history of
the University. Under him, the prince of Wales, afterwards Edward VII,
was entered at the College, and later showed his appreciation of its
influence by sending his eldest son, the duke of Clarence, here.
Whewell erected at his own cost the two courts on the east side of
Trinity Street, the rents being used to encourage the study of
International Law in the University. During his mastership the old
order began to crumble, and new ideals of education, study, and
research arose. The Elizabethan statutes were replaced by transitional
statutes in 1844 and 1861, and these in turn were replaced by others
in 1882, under which the College is now governed.

18. Whewell died in 1866, and was succeeded as master by Thompson, and
he in 1886 by Butler. With their masterships we come to the affairs of
to-day. The 1882 statutes opened a new chapter in our history;
restrictions on the marriage of fellows were removed, and successful
teachers thus encouraged to remain in residence; incidentally, this
created a new social atmosphere. In this and other ways the conditions
of academic life were considerably changed. We need not, however, shun
a comparison with older times: if you want to see how freely Trinity
during the late Victorian period spent itself in the public service
look down any list of judges, bishops, statesmen, colonial governors,
and civil servants of the time, and in all you will find many Trinity
men conspicuous. Confining ourselves strictly to academic work in
Cambridge and to those who have now [1906] passed away, I may mention
the names of Clerk Maxwell in physics, of Cayley in mathematics, of
Munro and Jebb in classics, of Thompson in Greek philosophy, of
Sidgwick in ethics, and of Westcott, Lightfoot, and Hort in theology:
all of these were fellows of the College, and professors in the
University.

19. This is a bare summary of a complex story. Of the spirit that
actuates the College, of all that makes it a living Society, I have
said little. In truth, these are incapable of analysis. The charm that
the place perennially exercises on those who, generation after
generation, make it their home, the affection it inspires, are
intangible: they exist, there are but few members of the House who
have not felt them, and perhaps that is all I need say on this aspect
of our history.


[Footnote 29: A paper read to a party of north-country students
visiting the College in 1906.]

[Footnote 30: On some of the items in Whitgift's tutorial ledgers, see
above, chapter ii, pp. 36-39: the bills are printed at length in
volumes 32 and 33 of the _British Magazine_, 1847, 1848. Other
information on the daily life of students of the time is given in the
statutes of 1560. An interesting list of the outfit and furniture in
the rooms of a fellow-commoner in 1577 was printed by C.H. Cooper,
_Annals of Cambridge_, vol. II, pp. 352-356.]




PART II.

=Concerning the University.=




CHAPTER XI.

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE MEDIEVAL UNIVERSITY.


The problems connected with the beginnings of the University of
Cambridge and the conditions of life in its early days have always
interested me. Much is uncertain and open to various readings[31], but
the following is a summary of the story, as it appears to me.

First, as to the site of the University. About the end of the eleventh
century, Cambridge was little more than a village concentrated round
St Peter's church, having separate hamlets in its vicinity, one near
St Benet's church and the other at Newnham: at that time there was
nothing to suggest the likelihood of its being chosen by students as
a place where they might live and work in security. During the next
century, however, it became of considerable importance. This was due
to several causes. The chief of these were the castle erected in it
by William the Conqueror to overawe the fen-men; its geographical
location which gave it command of the river passage by which most of
the traffic between the midlands and the counties of Norfolk and
Suffolk went; its position as a port of entry for small sea-going
vessels coming from Lynn, of which a relic still survives in a bonded
warehouse on the banks of the Cam; its vicinity to Sturbridge common
on which came to be held one of the chief annual fairs in the kingdom;
and lastly the establishment here of the large monastic Houses of the
Augustin Canons, of the Brethren of St John's Hospital, and of the
Nuns of St Rhadegund: it would seem also that it became[32], maybe
under the authority of the secular canons of St Giles, the seat of a
grammar-school or schools. By 1200 the town had spread from castle-end
to where Christ's, Peterhouse, and Queens' now stand, and along the
east side of the river there were numerous small wharves, locally
known as hythes. The writs of Henry I and Henry II and the charter of
John bear witness to its importance in their reigns, but later this
tended to diminish relatively to other towns.

The Universities of Cambridge and Oxford were initiated near the end
of the twelfth century, both arising in towns free from disorder and
where accommodation for students was obtainable. It was a time when
men of scholarly tastes, especially those resident in religious
houses, were conscious of their ignorance of recent developments in
theology as set out by Peter Lombard and in canon law, and were keen
to study these subjects and scholastic logic. Schools to meet these
needs arose in Cambridge and Oxford and became permanent. Like centres
of instruction were established in other places, but for one reason or
another did not survive long as degree-granting corporations.

It is not known whether the University of Cambridge began with a few
teachers taking up their residence in the town, giving instruction,
and attracting students and other teachers, or whether it started
ready-made by a migration of a body of discontented teachers and
students from some existing school. I believe the former view to be
correct. If so, we may reasonably assume that a considerable
proportion of the earliest adult students were previously living in
monastic houses here or in the neighbouring fenland monasteries at
Ely, Peterborough, or Croyland. It has been suggested that at first
the lectures were given in the local grammar-schools: this is
probable, and would fit in with the secular organization of the
University and the fact that boys learning Latin grammar (glomerels)
were reckoned among its students. Probably the movement was started
with the sanction and direct encouragement of the bishop of Ely,
certainly it was not directly monastic, and more likely the teachers
were secular clerks and not monks. I conjecture that at first the
lecturers were strangers to the locality, but this in no way implies
that a fragment of another university, students as well as teachers,
migrated here as an organized body.

Whatever the origin of the University, its members organized
themselves for mutual aid and protection as a _Studium_ on the model
of that at Paris, with which it seems later to have been frequently
in touch. If we may trust ancient traditions quoted by Bulaeus and
Peacock, the early University had also some connection with the
studium of Orleans: this is possible but speculative. Bologna
represented another type of organization which, however, was not
adopted anywhere in England. The University of Cambridge existed in
working order in 1209, and in my opinion its origin may be safely
assigned to some time in the previous twenty years.

Of its external history during the century following its organization
we know little: we read of its chancellor in 1225, of French students
coming to it in 1229, of special privileges conferred by the crown in
1231 and 1251, of its recognition by the pope in 1233, and finally of
a papal grant in 1318--exceptional in extent--of all rights which were
or could be enjoyed by any university in Christendom. Oxford went
through somewhat similar stages. The two universities were closely
connected, and by 1333 their position had become so firmly established
that they agreed not to recognize any other studium in the kingdom,
and in fact after that year no other university was established in
England until less than a century ago.

Originally the main source of university authority was the body of
active teachers (regents) acting with the concurrence of the
chancellor who represented the bishop of Ely; their grouping in
faculties was an obvious development, and probably took place early in
the thirteenth century. Resident graduates who had ceased to teach
(non-regents) were allowed a voice on matters of property, rights, and
privileges. The establishment of monasteries and colleges with
administrative officers tended to retain in residence graduates who
were not lecturing; through them the house of non-regents grew in
power, and finally in many questions obtained concurrent jurisdiction
with that of the regents--the result was a very complex constitution.
At first the University had no buildings of its own; the regent and
non-regent houses met in St Benet's or St Mary's church, and lectures
were given wherever accommodation could be obtained. After this
digression I return to the position of the students in the early
University.

Numerous monasteries were established in Cambridge during the
thirteenth century, and from this I infer that the number of members
of the religious Orders studying in the University steadily increased
during that century. Of monastic Houses in Cambridge previous to the
foundation of the University I have already mentioned those of the
Augustin Canons, founded in connection with St Giles' church, about
1092, and moved in 1112 to Barnwell where their priory became in time
one of the largest conventual buildings in England, and of the Austin
Brethren of Frost's or St John's Hospital, built about 1135 on ground
now occupied by St John's College. Shortly after the organization of
a studium in the town, five important Orders established Houses here.
These were the Franciscan or Grey Friars, who, from their first home
situated near the present Divinity Schools and used from 1224 to 1294,
removed in 1294 to a site now occupied by Sidney Sussex College, where
their church was one of the conspicuous architectural features of
medieval Cambridge; the Dominican or Black Friars, who built in 1274
on ground now occupied by Emmanuel College; the Carmelite or White
Friars, who, having previously lived in houses at Chesterton and
Newnham, removed in 1290 to a site now occupied by Queens' and King's
Colleges; the Augustine Friars, who built, about 1290, a home on or
near ground now occupied by the university examination halls and
lecture rooms, in the basement of which some fragments of the old
friary may be found; and the Sempringham or White Canons, who about
1290 obtained possession of St Edmund's Priory which had been built
before 1278 near the Trumpington Gate. The Houses of the Bethlehem
Friars, opened in 1257, of the Friars of the Sack, opened in 1258, and
of the Friars of St Mary, opened in 1273, were suppressed in 1307, and
probably were never important foundations. I believe that the presence
in Cambridge of these great establishments, always housing a certain
number of students, gave stability to the nascent University, and
tended to prevent its dissipation in times of stress: this is a point
in our early history which is sometimes overlooked. Students from
Houses of the Benedictine or Black Monks were also sent to Cambridge,
but until 1428 they seem to have had no special home of their own: in
that year the Order built for them a hostel known as Buckingham House
which now forms part of the first court of Magdalene College.

These conventual Houses were outside town and university authority,
but their wealth and position made them influential. Striking evidence
of this is afforded by the facts that they secured to their members
the right to proceed direct to degrees in divinity without graduating
in arts--a privilege not granted to students in law or medicine--and
that at every congregation of the University the senior religious
doctor present could veto the offer of any grace and so block all
business. These privileges suggest that monastic students were the
dominant class in the early days of the University. They were,
however, naturally distrusted by other students, for admittedly they
owed allegiance to outside bodies, and no man can serve two masters.
By the end of the thirteenth century the monastic movement had spent
its force, and thenceforth the religious students took a constantly
decreasing share in university activities; of course they disappeared
at the reformation, when the monasteries throughout the country were
suppressed.

I come next to the question of the secular students in arts, most or
all of whom would be clerks in major or minor orders. Rejecting the
migration theory of the origin of the University, I do not suppose
that in its earliest days these secular students were numerous, for
the vicinity cannot have provided many such men, but as soon as the
University acquired reputation as a centre of higher teaching they
would be attracted to it from a wide area, and their numbers would
be increased by many glomerels who would continue their course as
students in arts. In the course of the thirteenth century these
secular students became strong enough to assert themselves against the
position and privileges assumed by the religious students, and after
that century graces were constantly passed (_ex. gr._ in 1303) to
prevent monastic interference in academic affairs, or (as in 1369) to
limit the number of monastic graduates.

A non-graduate student in arts was, before admission, expected to
know Latin, and, on admission, apprenticed to a master or doctor who
acted as a tutor in scholastic matters: in 1276 this system of
apprenticeship was made compulsory. The full medieval course lasted
several years. Students who entered as boys stayed, if they took the
full course, till they were grown men, gradually taking up teaching as
part of their course of study. The bachelors may have assisted in the
education of the younger arts students and of the glomerels who are
mentioned below, but normally instruction in the arts course was given
by masters, and in the higher faculties by doctors. The degree of
master was a license to teach, and newly created masters were required
to teach and to reside for two years (or later at least one year) for
that purpose. This pre-reformation scheme is in marked contrast to the
modern plan where the students enter as young men, all of about the
same age, with a normal course lasting three years or so, and with
their studies sharply differentiated from those of a limited number
of post-graduate and research students and of a separate body of
teachers. Mullinger estimated that during the medieval period the
number of resident regents varied from one hundred to two hundred, and
the number of students (apparently exclusive of monastic students)
never exceeded two thousand of whom the great majority were of humble
birth; no doubt there were wide variations in the numbers at different
times.

The history of Guilds in the University cannot be given with any
certainty. It may be that in the early years of the University most
secular students and teachers from any particular locality were
associated together as a guild, and perhaps every student on arrival
was expected to join his local guild, and through it become a member
of the University. The guilds imposed on their members definite rules
for their conduct in relation to one another, and enforced such
regulations by means of money fines, refusal of assistance, and in
extreme cases expulsion. The relations between the members of
different guilds were, however, often unfriendly or worse; in
particular there was constant friction between the guilds connected
with localities north and south of the Trent. It has been suggested
that at one time one of the proctors represented the cis-trentine
guilds and the other the trans-trentine guilds: this seems to have
been the case at Oxford, but there is no evidence of such a custom at
Cambridge where, according to Peacock, these trentine disputes were
less violent than at the sister University.

We may take it that the master to whom a secular non-graduate student
was apprenticed looked after his studies, and probably officers of the
guild to which he belonged looked after him when sick or maltreated.
In other matters, however, he was left to take care of himself, and
thus was constantly liable to extortion. To meet this evil, the
University early obtained powers enabling it to settle, without
consulting the citizens, various local matters such as the prices of
lodging and food.

Besides students in arts there was also another class of secular
students consisting of boys, known as glomerels (grammarians) and
rhetoricians, who were under a special officer of the University
called the master of glomery. I conjecture that originally these were
the boys at the local grammar-schools, that after the foundation of
the University such boys were regularly treated as glomerel members of
it, and that for this reason we hear nothing more of the local
grammar-schools which had at first supplied them: most students of
this type must have lived at home and come from the town or immediate
neighbourhood. I suppose that in later times the number of glomerels
was swollen by the entry among them of students who had come to
Cambridge, and were found to be ignorant of Latin grammar, and so
inadmissible to the arts faculty.

The chief study of a glomerel was Latin grammar, and on attaining
reasonable proficiency in it he could change over to the arts faculty
if he wished. If a student continued in the glomerel faculty, the
degree of master in grammar (or rhetoric) was open to him, but in
processions of the University, such graduates took a lower place than
students in arts, and their inferior position was emphasized by a
statute which, while regulating the attendance of regents at the
funeral of a regent master or student in arts, stated that graduates
and scholars in grammar were not entitled to such recognition--_Illis
tantummodo exceptis, qui artem solam docent vel audiunt grammaticam,
ad quorum exequias nisi ex devotione non veniant supradicti_.

The ceremony of graduation in grammar has often been described: it
involved the beating openly in the schools of a shrewd boy obtained by
the university officers for the purpose, and the presentation to the
new master of a ferule: this suggests that the course was regarded as
a training for a schoolmaster's career, it also facilitated admission
to orders. As time passed, the glomerels, originally forming a large
and important section of the University here and at Oxford, decreased
in numbers, and in the latter half of the fifteenth century they
ceased to be of much importance in academic life. The faculty of
rhetoric was constituted on similar lines to that of grammar, and
practically treated as part of it. The last degrees in rhetoric and
grammar of which we have notice were conferred in 1493 and 1548
respectively: probably the office of master of glomery fell into
disuse about the beginning of the sixteenth century, though it is
possible that it was held by Sir John Cheke as late as 1547.

The evils consequent on allowing inexperienced students, some of whom
were quite young, to fend for themselves in all matters outside the
schools were obvious, and it was not long before steps were taken to
improve matters by the foundation of colleges and the licensing of
private hostels.

Colleges were designed for selected scholars partly to provide
assistance for them, and partly to protect them from pressure to join
a monastic Order: the advantages offered being shelter, a common
sitting room properly warmed, regular meals, the use of books, and
general supervision. The earliest attempt to provide aid and
protection of this kind for certain scholars was made, about 1275,
by Hugh de Balsham, who arranged for their reception as members of
Frost's Hospital; but there were constant quarrels between the two
sides of the House, and in 1284 he dissolved the union and moved the
secular students to a building (Peterhouse) of their own. Other
similar foundations were soon created: the King's Scholars (later
incorporated as King's Hall) in 1317, Michael-House in 1324, Clare in
1325, Pembroke in 1347, Gonville in 1348, Trinity Hall in 1350, and
Corpus Christi in 1352. Every new college that was established
provided fresh definite ties with the locality, and rendered less
likely the break-up of the University and the scattering of its
members--a serious risk to which in early days it was always subject.
Then came an interval of nearly a hundred years, but in the fifteenth
century the collegiate movement recommenced, and we have the
foundation of God's House in 1439, of King's in 1441, of Queens' in
1448 and 1465, of St Catharine's in 1473, and of Jesus in 1496. In the
sixteenth century we have the larger and more ambitious foundations of
Christ's in 1505, St John's in 1511, Magdalene in 1519, Trinity in
1546, Emmanuel in 1584, and Sidney Sussex in 1596.

The colleges were intended for picked scholars. In the course of the
fourteenth century the problem of the care of other students was taken
up, and they were forbidden to live in lodgings selected by themselves
and under no external supervision. To provide for them, the University
licensed private hostels which were managed by masters of arts on
lines somewhat similar to boarding houses in public schools to-day.
Thenceforth throughout the middle ages the majority of undergraduates
resided in these hostels. Caius gave the names and sites of
twenty-seven private hostels which he had known and all of which
closed their doors during his life, the last in 1540: Fuller
enumerated thirty-four hostels and two "inns" while his editor
mentioned fourteen other hostels, but some of these certainly ought
not to be included under the term. Perhaps we may say that the number
open at anyone time rarely exceeded thirty or fell short of twenty:
some were cheap, some expensive; some were well managed, others not
so. After the development of these hostels the guilds decreased in
importance, and finally disappeared.

With the establishment of colleges and private hostels the University
was fairly launched on its career in a form which lasted till the
middle half of the sixteenth century. My object was to state how, in
my opinion, it originally took shape, and I do not propose here to
follow its history further.


[Footnote 31: Most of the known facts are given in Mullinger's
excellent histories, Peacock's _Observations on the Statutes_, and
Rashdall's _Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages_--but all the
views of the last-named writer are not universally accepted.]

[Footnote 32: See _passim_ G. Peacock, _Observations on the Statutes_,
London, 1841, p. xxxv.]




CHAPTER XII.

DISCIPLINE.


This paper contains some extracts from my notebooks on the way in
which university and college discipline was maintained in former days
at Cambridge. The records on the subject are scanty, but I think the
facts are worth putting together in a connected form. There is no
reason to suppose that the practices of different colleges varied
materially, and if in the later period I have taken examples from the
records of Trinity it is only because I have had easier access to
them.

In the history of university discipline and social customs abrupt
changes are not to be expected, and none such are noticeable in the
transition from the medieval period, _circ._ 1200 to 1525, through
the renaissance, _circ._ 1525 to 1640, and the period of stagnation,
_circ._ 1660 to 1820, to the present age of reconstruction and
extension. I begin naturally with discipline in medieval Cambridge.

In the early days of the University the students lodged in the town
and were of all ages from twelve or thirteen upwards. Except in
strictly academic matters, there was little or no supervision of their
conduct, and, outside the schools, grave disorders were common; the
University, however, claimed power, when it chose, to take cognizance
of all offences contrary to good manners, and at any rate in later
days did so in serious cases. The regulations at Cambridge and Oxford
were so similar that we may fairly draw illustrations from either
University, and the records of the chancellor's court at Oxford in the
fifteenth century show that fines, imprisonment, and, in extreme
cases, expulsion were customary penalties for serious offences against
university regulations and customs. I have no doubt that earlier
records, if extant, would be of the same general character.

The first college to be founded at Cambridge was Peterhouse which took
its final form in 1284, and during the next century several other
similar Houses were established: these societies were intended for
selected scholars. The problem of the control of other students was
met in the course of the fourteenth century by preventing them from
living in private lodgings chosen by themselves, and thenceforth,
throughout the middle ages, those who came from a distance were
generally required to reside in private hostels run by masters of arts
on lines somewhat similar to boarding houses in public schools to-day.
Besides the lay and secular students accommodated in colleges, private
hostels, and at their homes, there were also in the medieval
University a considerable number of "religious" students who were
housed in monasteries or monastic hostels. Some of the colleges in
later medieval times received as paying members a few wealthy
pensioners, parochial priests in middle life, and even monks from
distant convents, but probably the number of such favoured students
was never large. With the establishment of colleges and the
organization of private hostels discipline improved; inside their
walls as well as in the monastic hostels it is probable that order was
well maintained, but outside them, at least among the students at
private hostels, discipline was left to the university authorities who
did little or nothing in the matter.

The colleges took seriously their responsibilities for discipline, and
all things contrary to good manners and morals were prohibited. For
the gravest offences, such as contumacy, crimes of violence, and
heresy, expulsion was usually ordered. Among less serious
delinquencies, explicitly forbidden and therefore we may assume not
unknown, were bringing strangers into the house, sleeping out, and
absence without leave; using insulting language, drunkenness,
gambling, and frequenting taverns; keeping company with loose women;
throwing missiles and carrying arms; and the keeping of dogs, hawks,
falcons, and ferrets. In the regulations of many colleges, a course
of study was indicated, and directions given that idleness was to be
punished. Regular attendance at religious exercises was assumed, and
was explicitly directed on certain occasions: I suppose that students
performed such duties without much external pressure, and I know no
record of the infliction of any penalty in early times for
non-attendance. In the middle ages Latin was the language generally
enforced, though occasionally French was permitted; this remained the
rule until the seventeenth century. Conversation during dinner and
supper was forbidden in many colleges, and of course was impossible in
those cases where some book was then read aloud. At King's College,
jumping and ball throwing, and at Clare College meetings in bedrooms
for feasting and talking were also forbidden. At a somewhat later date
Caius ordered his students to be in bed by eight o'clock at night, but
they made up for this by rising very early in the morning. In general
the punishment for minor faults was left to the discretion of the
authorities. This was only reasonable, for a medieval college was a
mixed community of lads and men, the members being of all ages from
about fourteen or fifteen upwards; and rules enforced on boys of
fourteen could not be applied to men of twenty-three or twenty-four,
who were in fact already taking part in the teaching of the junior
scholars.

For all members, the ultimate penalty for the gravest offences was
expulsion. For less serious misconduct, fines, restrictions on the
food supplied, impositions, and confinement within the walls, are
believed to have been common penalties, at any rate for adolescents;
but, as I explain below, I think that corporal punishment was
constantly inflicted on non-adults in lieu of a fine, which indeed
boys would have had considerable difficulty in paying. As far as the
younger students and the bachelors at colleges were concerned the
extant regulations in regard to their exercises, amusements, incomings
and outgoings, suggest that they were treated much like the junior and
senior boys in a rather strict public school in the first half of the
nineteenth century; and perhaps the senior graduate members were
treated somewhat like residents in colleges at the same period.

Membership of a college was a privilege confined, in general, to
scholars specially nominated, and no doubt the standards of work and
discipline there were higher than in the private hostels. Naturally we
know less of life in these hostels, but it is likely that disciplinary
rules were originally made by or with the approval of the elder
residents, and that the normal discipline in them was of the same
general character as that exercised in colleges, though, as the
members paid for themselves, money fines were possible and usual
penalties, especially in the case of the older members. There must
have been more variety in the discipline of hostels than of colleges,
and we may safely say that some hostels were well conducted, others
not so.

It is possible that finally the University claimed the right to
examine and supervise the internal regulations of the hostels. A set
of rules, thus enforced on an unendowed hall at Oxford in the
fifteenth century, has been discovered and printed by Rashdall: they
do not differ much from those usual at a college, except that some of
the penalties specified are pecuniary, and that the principal was
given explicit permission, if he wished, to flog a student, even
though the lad's own master (_i.e._ the master to whom he had been
apprenticed) had certified that he had already corrected him or was
willing to do so.

Was corporal punishment commonly used in medieval times? Until
recently it was accepted without argument that this was the case; and
certainly in the fifteenth century and later when we get detailed
information on the subject, the younger students were subject to it.
Rashdall, however, has argued that the absence of its mention in
earlier times implies that the birch was unknown in the ordinary
university regulations till towards the end of the sixteenth century
or later, though he admits in various places that glomerels were
liable to it: his authority is accepted by Rait. It is true that in
the statutes given in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries,
birching is not mentioned explicitly, but, since the punishments for
petty offences are rarely specified in detail, this proves nothing. In
the fifteenth century corporal punishment is mentioned as a recognized
penalty. For instance, the statutes given by Henry VI to King's
College, Cambridge, prescribed that scholars and young fellows might
be punished by stripes, and a year or two later, the statutes of
Magdalen College, Oxford, directed that the demies should be subject
to flogging. In later regulations of various colleges, to some of
which I refer below, whipping is mentioned as a recognized punishment,
but often as one to which only the younger students were liable.

I have already argued that in medieval colleges discipline must have
varied according to the age of the offender, and I conjecture that
adults were never regularly subject to corporal punishment, but that
boys were always so, and that the use of the rod was regarded as
needing no explicit statutable authority. Its employment was no
strange thing, for adult offenders against the law, apprentices, and
boys at school, were all flogged at times. And what else, it has been
well asked, could the authorities do with a troublesome boy of
fourteen? In general a fine was impossible for he had no
pocket-money. Most of the colleges were designed for poor scholars,
and in such foundations usually the allowance for commons was so small
that without risk to health any reduction for more than a day or two
was difficult; little leisure was allowed for recreation or exercise,
and thus heavy impositions were impossible; and confinement to the
precincts of the House was so common that gating was no punishment. A
lad of seventeen or eighteen had more liberty and privileges, and in
general on reaching that age was as safe from the chance of corporal
punishment as was a boy of the same age at a public school fifty years
ago.

Somewhat similar arguments apply to the private hostels, and the
regulations of an unendowed hall at Oxford, to which I have already
referred, show that the use of the rod or birch was recognized there.
If as I suppose is likely, Clement Paston was at a private hostel, we
have a definite instance of the similar use of the rod at Cambridge,
for among the Paston letters is one dated 28 January 1458 from Dame
Agnes Paston, about her boy, Clement, in which she says "prey
Grenefeld to send me feythfully word by wrytyn who (how) Clement
Paston hathe do his dever i lerning. And if he hathe nought do well,
nor wyll nought amend, prey him that he wyll trewly belassch (_i.e._
flog) him tyll he wyll amend, and so ded the last Maystur and ye best,
that ev' he hadd at Cambrege." Clement was born in 1442, so he was
then fifteen years old.

I asserted above that school-boys in the middle ages were liable to
the birch or cane. I suppose this will not be questioned, but by way
of parenthesis I add that this liability seems to have been a
well-established practice for centuries. It goes back to classical
times for in the schools of Rome the less serious offences were
punished by the cane applied to the hand, and graver faults by the
birch applied to the back; and there is a curious fresco at
Herculaneum of the application of the latter to a boy, horsed by one
schoolfellow and with his feet held by another. The royal whipping
boys in the courts of Western Europe remind us that, at least
vicariously, princes were subject to this discipline as well as
commoners.

In more recent times the deeds of Busby and Keate at Westminster and
Eton respectively are preserved in tradition, while the reputation of
Udall at an earlier time, _circ._ 1530, may be gathered from the
remarks of Thomas Tusser, a choirboy at St Paul's Cathedral, who
subsequently went to Eton: Tusser says, "From Paul's I went, to Eton
sent, To learn straightways the Latin phrase Where fifty-three stripes
giv'n to me, at once I had. For faults but small, or none at all, It
came to pass thus beat I was." The similar vigour of Udall's
successor, Cox, is mentioned by Ascham. In short, the old saw: "Spare
the rod, and spoil the child, Solomon said in accents mild, Be it boy
or be it maid, Whip 'em and wallop 'em Solomon said" represented the
current belief and practice of former days; though the dictum
attributed to that king is stronger than the passage in Proverbs,
xiii, 24 warrants.

In the sixteenth century the colleges opened their doors to the
admission of pensioners and fellow-commoners. Collegiate teaching and
arrangements were superior to those of the private hostels, and before
the middle of the century the latter had disappeared: their revival
was rendered impossible by a regulation that membership of the
University should be confined to those who were members of a college.
Shortly afterwards it became the custom not to require residence for
degrees after the baccalaureate, and thus a course limited to three or
four years became usual for the average student. These changes were of
far-reaching importance.

In the course of this century new statutes were given to the
University and colleges, and subsequently we possess records, fairly
complete, of the domestic life of students. Early in the following
century, the average age of entry began to rise, and before its close,
it had become common for students to defer entry until about seventeen
years old.

University decrees regulating the conduct of students in many matters
now appear, notably one in 1595 by Goad, then vice-chancellor, which
gives a summary of what was expected. Expulsion, suspension from
degrees, and refusal of leave to graduate until after a specified
time, were normal punishments for serious offences, for trivial
misconduct fines are now constantly prescribed, and physical
punishments for non-adults are also directed in many cases.

In colleges, the Tudor statutes generally enjoined good conduct on all
students. The regulations about the punishment of offences were mostly
concerned with grave matters for which admonitions, and finally
expulsions, were the recognized punishments. Penalties for the
non-performance of religious exercises now appear: thus, at Christ's
College, Cambridge, and at Balliol College, Oxford, whipping was
prescribed as a penalty for absence from chapel, though probably
restricted to the younger students; so too at Peterhouse, students
over eighteen who were absent from prayers were to be fined, while
younger students so offending were to be deprived of dinner, and if
persistent in their neglect flogged in hall.

As in medieval times, the authorities were generally left a free hand
in settling the regulations for the maintenance of normal discipline.
Probably fines, impositions, restrictions on the food supplied, and
gatings continued to be ordinarily used. Reading the bible aloud at
meal times in hall, dining apart on bread and water, and being
deprived of commons, are definitely mentioned in the 1520 statutes of
St John's College, Cambridge, as possible penalties; similarly at
Corpus Christi College, Oxford, being compelled to eat alone at a
small table in the middle of the hall and restriction to bread and
water are specified as suitable punishments.

The use of the birch was now constantly prescribed, though probably
in practice always confined to lads. Thus, at Christ's College,
Cambridge, a whipping for lads and a fine for adults; and at
Brasenose, Oxford, a fine or a flogging, at the discretion of the
principal, were statutable punishments for various faults, including
at the latter College the making of odious comparisons in
conversation. At other Houses too, for instance, at Corpus Christi,
Oxford, Wolsey (Christ Church), Oxford, Trinity College, Cambridge,
and Gonville and Caius, Cambridge, the use of the cane or birch is
sanctioned in the case of lads. I have no doubt this was also the
general rule in earlier days, and nothing in the Tudor codes indicates
that any material change was made in the existing practice, but on the
whole I conjecture that the regulations were more humane, and I am
inclined to think, contrary to Rashdall's view, that discipline was
less severe after the renaissance than before it. In colleges the
deans were and are the chief officers responsible for discipline; in
the University, the proctors.

A part of the fifth chapter of the Trinity statutes of 1560 relating
to the office of deans may be summarized as indicating what was then
customary, or at any rate desired, in the matter of chapel attendance
and in certain questions of petty discipline. The statute, which is in
Latin, is to the following effect:

  In every community regard should be paid to correctness of morals
  and general probity of life, accordingly there shall be two deans to
  give their sedulous attention to these objects; at least one of such
  deans shall be a bachelor of divinity and chosen from the eight
  senior fellows, and the other, a master of arts or a bachelor of
  divinity.

  The deans shall provide for the fitting performance of public
  worship; see that all fellows, scholars, pensioners, sizars, and
  subsizars attend on Saints' days and Sundays at morning and evening
  prayers, the litany, the communion, and sermons; and see that the
  same persons are on other days regularly present at prayers between
  five and six o'clock in the morning. Every fellow who is absent
  shall be fined three half-pence, and if he comes in late or goes out
  early, one half-penny. The fine for a bachelor scholar who is absent
  shall be one penny, and for one who comes in late or goes out early,
  one half-penny. Every undergraduate scholar, and every pensioner,
  sizar, and subsizar who is absent shall, if his age exceeds eighteen
  years be fined one half-penny, and if he comes in late or goes out
  early, one farthing; but if such student has not attained this age,
  he shall be chastised with rods in the hall on the following
  Friday. Those are to be deemed as coming late who at evening prayers
  arrive after the first psalm; at morning prayers, after the
  _Venite_; at the Litany, after the words _O Holy Blessed and
  Glorious Trinity_; and at the communion service after the recital of
  the commandments: anyone who, during service, remains in the
  antechapel is to be punished as if he had been absent.

  Each week on Friday, at seven o'clock in the evening, the deans
  shall chastise non-adult offenders. All scholars (bachelors
  excepted), pensioners, sizars, and subsizars shall be present during
  the infliction of such corporal punishment, and anyone who does not
  answer to his name when called, and does not stay until all the
  punishments are finished, shall, if an adult, be fined one penny,
  and if non-adult be flogged on the next day.

  Each week on Thursday, the deans shall appoint two monitors from
  among the bachelor scholars for noting offences of bachelors; and
  six monitors [from among the undergraduate scholars], two for noting
  offences of undergraduates at public worship, and four for noting
  those who fail to speak Latin: the monitors shall prepare lists of
  all who offend in these particulars. The deans shall also appoint
  each week six scholars and four sizars for service at the fellows'
  table, and one sizar for the organ.

  In order to ensure the decorous celebration of public worship, the
  deans shall bring with them to the first vespers of every festival
  a written schedule of the duties of everyone concerned in that
  festival, and shall further appoint an inquisitor who shall remind
  everyone of the duty so assigned to him. Anyone who shall fail in
  such duty shall, if a non-adult, be whipt, and, if an adult, be
  fined fourpence.

  One half of all fines inflicted shall go to the College, the other
  half shall be kept by the deans.

The Tudor statutes generally remained in force till the middle of the
nineteenth century, though in time the practices of the colleges came
to differ materially from what was there directed. Briefly we may say
that in the sixteenth century the standard of medieval discipline and
study sank; but in the early years of the seventeenth century things
improved until the civil disturbances threw academic work into
confusion. With the establishment of the commonwealth the age of entry
rose, and thus the use of corporal and puerile punishments died out,
and with the disappearance of boys as members of the University, rules
intended only for young lads became obsolete and inoperative. Most of
the students henceforth were adolescent. The few who were younger were
dealt with like school-boys, but the comparison is rather with
school-boys of recent years than with those of their own period.

As far back as Sir Simon D'Ewes's time--and he entered Cambridge in
1618--the majority of the students were regarded as responsible, and
capable of conducting themselves rationally. They reflected the
virtues and foibles of their time, but they were a select class, and
compare favourably in manners and morals with their contemporaries
elsewhere. Almost without exception they speak warmly of their
development in college from lads to young men, of friendships formed
with their elders as well as their contemporaries, of the abiding
influence of the place, and of their affection for it.

From the restoration to the regency was a period of stagnation.
Discipline deteriorated, and if we may trust contemporary accounts
drunkenness and immorality were far from uncommon. No doubt there were
always some residents who maintained high traditions and ideals, but
on the whole the records of the social life prevalent then at
Cambridge and Oxford make but sorry reading.

The sixteenth century codes indicate lofty aims, but statutes and
rules are not always observed literally, and it may be thought that
those mentioned represented only old customs, perhaps already
obsolete, or what was deemed desirable but was not enforced. It may be
well then to turn to contemporary evidence, to regulations passed on
specific occasions, and to records of definite punishments--though we
can expect the latter to have been preserved only in grave cases, and
cannot hope to learn from them much about discipline in petty matters.

Contemporary evidence would serve us best if we could get it, but the
diarists and letter-writers are mostly silent on the subject. From
this, however, I conclude that generally the disciplinary regulations
were thought sensible. Life in the University may have been hard and
probably was so, but I do not believe that discipline was
unreasonable. All the evidence is to the contrary. Thus the
above-mentioned Tusser, a student of no special brilliancy, who
entered at Trinity Hall in the early half of the sixteenth century
speaks thankfully of leaving school, and says: "To Cambridge thence
... I got at last, There joy I felt, there trim I dwelt, There heaven
from hell, I shifted well, With learned men, a number then, the time I
passed."

Coming now to definite punishments, I mention successively corporal
punishments, such as birching, the use of the stocks, and stanging;
fines, direct and indirect; deprivation of days or standing; gatings;
impositions; declaratory confessions; and rustications and expulsions.

_Birching, Flogging._ Birching remained a recognized punishment for
the younger students in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, but I
think that in practice it was not often inflicted except on boys. One
or two examples of orders directing it will suffice.

On 8 May 1572, the Vice-Chancellor, Whitgift, issued an order which is
so detailed that I write it at length. Here it is:

  If any scholar shall go into any river, pool, or other water in the
  county of Cambridge; by day or night, to swim or wash, he shall, if
  under the degree of bachelor of arts, for the first offence be
  sharply and severely whipped publicly in the common hall of the
  College in which he dwells, in the presence of all the fellows,
  scholars, and others dwelling in the College, and on the next day
  shall be again openly whipped in the public school, where he was or
  ought to be an auditor, before all the auditors, by one of the
  proctors or some other assigned by the Vice-Chancellor, and for the
  second offence every such delinquent shall be expelled his College
  and the University for ever. But if he shall be a bachelor of arts,
  then for the first offence he shall be put in the stocks for a whole
  day, in the common hall of his College, and shall, before he is
  liberated, pay 10s towards the commons of the College, and for the
  second offence shall be expelled his College and the University. And
  if he shall be a master of arts, or bachelor of law, physic or
  music, or of superior degree, he shall be severely punished, at the
  judgment and discretion of the Master of his College.

From this it is clear that at that time undergraduates, even of mature
age, were liable to be flogged as a part of the ordinary discipline of
the University and College, but probably it was unusual to inflict the
penalty.

Thirty years later, after the disturbances of 20 February 1607,
following the performance of a comedy in King's College, an order was
issued that thereafter every ringleader in any similar disturbances
should be banished from the University: and every less responsible
offender should, if a graduate, pay for the harm done, be suspended
from his degree, and for one year refused leave to take a further
degree; and if a non-graduate should for one year be refused leave to
graduate, and further, if non-adult, be corrected in the schools by
the rod, and, if adult, make an open confession of his guilt in the
schools: also the offender if not a scholar should be set in the
stocks at the bull ring in the market place. Here, it will be noticed,
the punishment by the rod is restricted to those non-adulti.

In a list of punishments inflicted at Corpus Christi College in 1622,
quoted by Lamb, admonitions, fines, suspensions, and whippings are
mentioned. Even as late as 1648 there is a record of "Benton per
Tutorem suum Magistrum Johnson virgis castigandis."

In 1648 an undergraduate bible-clerk of Peterhouse, age about
seventeen, Tobias Conyers by name was "corrected publicly"--which,
I take it, means flogged--for toasting the king. But times were
abnormal, and if Conyers ventured into the stirring field of politics,
he had to take the consequences.

The liability to a flogging still existed after the restoration.
Thus in the _Poor Scholar_, by R. Nevile, London, 1662, there are
references to it in Act ii, Scene 6, and Act v, Scene 4, as being
still in use in colleges though whether adults were so liable is
uncertain. If the author's statements refer to contemporary matters
and are trustworthy it would seem that the punishment was then
common, the culprits being mounted on barrels, and the flogging
inflicted at the butteries. The birch was also still occasionally used
in university discipline, for on 20 March 1674, the vice-chancellor
ordered Ellethorpe of St John's, and Hodges of Sidney Sussex to be
whipped for having been rude to the junior proctor, Peter Parham, of
Caius College: neither of the offenders had matriculated.

These references provide the strongest evidence with which I am
acquainted for the assertions that flogging was a usual punishment at
Cambridge during the seventeenth century. There is a widely spread
tradition that when at Christ's College, Milton was flogged, but Peile
has shown that there is no satisfactory evidence for it, and it is
intrinsically improbable. In a disciplinary order of Corpus Christi
College in 1684, the only punishments mentioned are discommonsings,
admonitions, rustications, deprivation of seniority, and refusal of
college testimonials, so, comparing this with the orders of 1622 and
1648 which I have quoted above, perhaps we may take it that the use of
the rod there had become obsolete.

The above extracts are sufficient to show that corporal punishment was
recognized under the Elizabethan codes, though it seems probable that
public opinion was against its use, unless the students were quite
young; perhaps this was always the practice, and thus, as the age of
entry rose, the use of the birch died out. Incepting bachelors and
senior students were usually punished for serious offences by
deferring their admission to degrees, loss of terms, or rustication:
being adult, they were in effect regarded as not subject to corporal
punishment.

_Stocks. Stangs._ A couple of other physical punishments--ignominious
and sometimes painful--may be mentioned in passing.

One of these was confinement in Stocks. To this allusion has already
been made in the orders of 1572 and 1607. Another instance is to be
found in the records of Corpus Christi College, where about 1580, one
of the students, Tobias Bland, who had libelled the master, was
compelled to confess his fault publicly, next put in the stocks, and
then expelled. In the old dining hall of Trinity College there were
stocks in the minstrel's gallery, but there is no evidence that they
were re-erected when the hall was rebuilt in 1605; perhaps the
punishment was then becoming unusual, though against this may be set
the fact that there are references to the college stocks in 1610 at
King's, in 1625 at Christ's, and in 1642 at Emmanuel. The stocks at
King's and Emmanuel, like those at Trinity, were in the hall.
Allusions to their use are rare. The punishment continued to be
inflicted after the restoration, for on 10 April 1680, Thomas Grigson,
who had been rude to the junior proctor, Thomas Verdon of St John's
College, was ordered to be "sett fast in the stocks, by the heeles for
one whole houre, which was presently effected by the Constable of
Saint Bennett's Parish in Cambridge." He had partially atoned for his
offence by begging pardon on his knees, and so escaped a worse
punishment.

The Stang was a wooden pole on which the luckless culprit was tied,
and carried ignominiously through the courts of his college. In John
Ray's _Collection of English Words not Generally Used_, London, 1674,
it is said that the "word is still used in some colleges in the
University of Cambridge; to stang scholars in Christmas, being to
cause them to ride on a colt-staff or pole for missing of chappel."
References to the place where the pole was kept occur in the
account-books of Trinity, St John's, Queens', and Christ's. In Parne's
unpublished manuscript history of Trinity College, allusion is made to
stanging as though at the beginning of the eighteenth century it had
become recently obsolete. From his language it would seem also that
undergraduates themselves inflicted the punishment on those of their
members who declined to take part in the Christmas revelries.

_Fines._ Pecuniary fines have been used to enforce discipline from
the earliest times by the University as well as by the colleges: after
the renaissance, the increasing age and means of students made fines a
suitable penalty for many of the less serious offences, such as
participation in forbidden amusements, visits to places out of bounds,
walking across the grass in college courts, smoking in public places,
the failure to wear academic dress when required, non-attendance at
lectures, chapel, hall, etc. Probably grave misconduct was punished
otherwise, or by fines combined with additional penalties. A fine, if
heavy, presses unequally on men of different means; and thus a system
of fines on a fixed scale cannot be regarded as equitable. Fines are
still used as penalties for the infraction of rules.

_Discommonsing. Dissizaring._ To be put out of commons was a
well-recognized penalty, applicable chiefly to scholars and sizars,
part of whose emolument consisted of a right to dine in hall and, in
some cases, to have commons (bread, butter, and beer) to a limited
amount each day. To deprive such a student of the right to dine in
hall or of his commons was equivalent to a pecuniary fine, and in the
case of a poor scholar might be a severe, though not a satisfactory,
punishment; probably a modicum of bread and beer was supplied to
students even when discommonsed. In some comments, published in 1768,
on university education at Cambridge, discommonsing is described as
"one of the most idle and anile punishments ... inflicted rather on
the parent than on the young man, who being prohibited to eat in Hall
is driven to purchase a dinner at a tavern or coffee house."

Here is an example of an order of discommonsing at Trinity in the
seventeenth century: "Agreed that Cassill should be punisht a monthes
commons.... Agreed at the same time that Pepys besides a monthes
commons, should have an admonition and pay the charges of the
chirurgion for the healinge Cassil's head w^h he broke with a key."
(Conclusion, 1 August 1643.) Its preservation is due to the fact that
Pepys' punishment was combined with an admonition, and evidence that
an admonition had been given might be required if subsequently a
question of expulsion arose. The culprit in question was Thomas Pepys
(B.A. 1645) and not the Samuel of immortal memory.

In 1815, Mansel, master of Trinity and bishop of Bristol, was
accustomed to put men out of sizings and commons if they appeared in
hall in trousers instead of knee breeches, and it would seem then that
to be put out of sizings further deprived the student of obtaining
private supplies from the college kitchens. Half a century ago the
penalty was still in use at Trinity, being imposed on scholars in
waiting, who failed to appear after hall to say grace.

_Loss of Days._ To qualify for a degree and for an emolument, it is
and has been generally necessary to keep a certain number of days by
residence in each of certain specified terms. At one time a common
form of punishment was to cancel a certain number of days already
kept. Thus the student would be obliged to stay at Cambridge for so
many additional days to make up for the requisite number which had to
be kept in the course of that term. In the seventeenth century the
authorities went further and sometimes cancelled terms that had been
kept. I believe this form of punishment has long been obsolete.

_Gating. Walling._ Continuous confinement within the walls of the
college (walling) or confinement during certain hours (gating) was
another form of punishment. A case of walling occurred at one of the
smaller colleges in Cambridge in 1872, but I know of no more recent
instance. Gating is still in force. It causes some social
inconvenience. As far as it goes, it promotes regular hours and
economy, and it has no indirect ill-effects. Accordingly it serves
well to mark dissatisfaction and act as a warning.

Here is an old-time example from the records of Trinity, 19 July 1652,
of the infliction of this and other penalties interesting from the
name of the scholar on whom it was inflicted:

  Agreed that Dryden be put out of commons for a fortnight at least,
  and that he goe not out of the colledg during the time aforesaid,
  excepting to sermons, without express leave of the master or
  vice-master; and that at the end of the fortnight he read a
  confession of his crime, in the hall, at the dinner time; at the
  three fellowes tables.

His offence was disobedience to the vice-master, and his contumacy in
submitting himself to discipline.

_Impositions._ Another tolerably obvious punishment was the setting of
impositions. The imposition might be the learning of lines by heart or
the delivery of a declamation on some given subject, or the production
in writing of so many lines of a classical work or of an analysis of
some book. Impositions in writing were constantly done vicariously,
and if so, the punishment was little more than a fine: apparently this
abuse of the practice was well known.

The tasks set were very heavy. In the _Gradus_, 1803, the learning by
heart of the first book of the _Iliad_ is mentioned as a possible,
though very severe imposition. Similarly, according to J.M.F. Wright,
a thousand lines of Homer would have been regarded in 1815 as an
unusually sharp punishment, but such as might have been given in lieu
of rustication. Other impositions mentioned are the learning by heart
of a satire of Juvenal, and the production of an analysis of Butler's
_Analogy_.

At Trinity the deans were provided with long sheets of paper on which
were printed in double columns forms such as the following:

  ... to transcribe ... lines of Virgil's Aeneid, beginning at line
  ... book ..., and to deliver it to the Junior Dean after morning
  Chapel on Tuesday.

  ... to transcribe ... lines of Homer's Iliad, beginning at line ...
  book ..., and to deliver it to the Senior Dean after Morning Chapel
  on Thursday.

  ... to repeat ... lines of ... by order of the Junior (or Senior)
  Dean.

These were filled up by the deans, cut off, and distributed by the
chapel-clerk to the men concerned. Customarily in Trinity the senior
dean gave impositions from the _Iliad_ to be delivered on a Thursday,
an the junior dean from the _Aeneid_ to be delivered on a Tuesday.
Forms for putting men out of commons, and admonishing them were
printed in the same way on sheets, to be used as occasions arose.

Impositions were set at Trinity as late as 1830, but I believe the
custom had died out before 1840, though I am told it was still used in
certain Cambridge colleges as late as 1855. At Oxford the practice
continued rather later and indeed at a few colleges seems to have been
in force till near the close of the nineteenth century, for Rashdall,
writing in 1895, speaks of the practice as having been in force there
until recently.

A century ago there seems to have been a sort of recognized scale of
penalties for cutting lectures or chapel. First, a reprimand was given
at an interview or sent in writing by a servant; second, an imposition
was set; third the offender was deprived of commons and sizings. If
these steps were ineffective, the matter might be regarded as a
serious offence against college discipline, and lead to "hauling" by
the tutor, a gating, an interview with the master, a formal
admonition, and in extreme cases to rustication.

The theory of these petty punishments was set out by Whewell in his
_Principles of English University Education_, 1837. A punishment,
according to him, was to be regarded as the visible expression of
college dissatisfaction with certain conduct: as an infliction it
might be slight, but it emphasized the discontent expressed, and acted
as a definite warning. He suggested a most severe scale; namely, for
the first offence, forfeiture of one month's commons; for the second,
of three months' commons; and for the third, expulsion; but there is
no reason to think that this was ever the practice.

_Confessions._ A public confession was another form of punishment once
used: I believe that this ceased to be employed by the middle of the
eighteenth century.

_Statutory Admonitions. Rustication. Expulsion._ For the graver
offences, a statutory admonition, rustication (temporary removal from
the college), or expulsion were reserved.

A formal admonition was intended to act as a serious warning, and it
served as a statutory prelude to expulsion. For this reason it was
usually recorded, and in former times an additional sting was added by
compelling the culprit to make also a public or written confession of
his fault. Admonitions are not very common in the records of Trinity:
some thirty or forty occur in the sixteenth and seventeenth century,
only a few in the eighteenth century, and they are rare in the
nineteenth century save for a few relating to irregularity of
attendances at chapel or lectures. The last admonition at Trinity was
given in 1881, shortly before the new statutes of 1882 became
operative. Here are typical instances of the record of admonitions.

  Whereas heretofore I have received an admonition from the Master of
  the College for my lewd and outrageous behaviour within the same,
  and have since that time for like rioting and swaggering in the Town
  received another admonition from him before the Vice-Master of the
  College and my Tutor and also therewith all public correction, if
  these admonitions together with due punishment do not work
  reformation in me hereafter, I do likewise willingly acknowledge
  that I am incorrigible and worthy for the next like offence to be
  expelled the College. Galen Browne. Circ. 1601. [Browne was elected
  to a scholarship in 1602, and graduated B.A. and M.A. in due course,
  so presumably he amended his ways.]

  Whereas I have very unadvisedly and rashly stricken one Mr Halfhead,
  a College servant, to the shedding of blood, I do acknowledge myself
  to have received an admonition for that fault tending to expulsion.
  Thomas Shirley, 22 February, 1621. [Halfhead was the manciple.
  Shirley was a fellow and master of arts, so the offence was the more
  serious, but perhaps the provocation was great. Shirley was
  subsequently junior bursar and tutor.]

  I, Christopher Offley, do confess that often time and many ways I
  have offended against the Statute _de Modestia Morum_ to the
  displeasure of God, hurt to myself, the evil example of others, and
  discredit of the College, and also have broken mine oath taken when
  I was preferred scholar in unreverent behaviour towards some of the
  fellows and specially in giving scandalous and contumelious speeches
  to Mr Hitch, being the Minister and Fellow of this College for which
  misdemeanors and undutiful carriage I am unfainedly sorry and
  heartily desire forgiveness both of God, and him, or any other whom
  I have offended, and confess I have received a just admonition of
  the Master and Seniors by setting my date to this writing. Circ.
  1622. [Offley graduated B.A., 1624, and M.A., 1627, so presumably he
  amended his ways.]

  Whereas we whose names are underwritten, on the fourth of April
  last, were guilty of grave irregularity and misbehaviour by
  insulting the Vice-Master, the Dean, and other officers of the
  College and thereby gave just offence to the Society, we do profess
  ourselves heartily sorry for the same and acknowledge the lenity of
  the Master and Dean in suffering us to return so soon from
  rustication. And we do hereby engage to be strictly observant of our
  duty for the future and take this as our first admonition in order
  to expulsion. James Bensley, John Ambler. 29 May, 1754. [Bensley
  graduated in due course and was elected to a fellowship: Ambler did
  not graduate.]

  Ordered that ..., for irregular attendance at lectures and neglect
  of impositions, be admonished a second time previous to rustication
  or expulsion. 29 May, 1844.

Temporary or permanent removal from the College were penalties
reserved for the gravest offences. They are still recognized as
possible punishments. The fact that there are but few records of the
infliction of these extreme penalties indicates how easily discipline
has always been maintained.

My readers may well think that the results of these notes are somewhat
scanty, but if that nation is happy which has no history, surely
universities and colleges are to be congratulated whose records of
punishment are so few. To sum up the matter, the general effect left
on my mind is that most of the common offences were due only to
youthful exuberance of spirits and not to deliberate mischief making;
and that the rules and sanctions, judged by the standard of their
time, have been neither harsh nor unreasonable, and have usually been
approved by public opinion in the University.




CHAPTER XIII.

NEWTON'S _PRINCIPIA_.


Newton's _Principia_ is one of the few scientific books which has
sensibly affected the methods of scientific research and the ideas of
men about the universe. It is on this aspect of the subject I propose,
in this paper, to make a few remarks. The work itself is a classic in
the history of mathematics: the exposition of the subject, the
enunciation of the principle of prime and ultimate ratios, the
creation of mechanics as a science resting on experiments, and the
theory of universal gravitation with concrete applications to the
solar system, make it a masterpiece. Here I avoid all technicalities,
and confine myself to a general description of its genesis and
contents and the reason why its publication affected scientific
thought and methods.

Newton's exposition arose from an investigation of the cause of the
motion of the planets round the sun, and this in due course led to the
enunciation and establishment of the Newtonian theory of attraction.
The origin of this theory has been often told, but will bear
repetition. The fundamental idea occurred to Newton in 1665 or 1666,
shortly after he had taken his degree at Cambridge, when, as he wrote
later, "I was in the prime, of my age for invention, and minded
Mathematicks and Philosophy more than at any time since." His
reasoning was as follows. He knew that gravity extended to the highest
hills, he saw no reason why it should cease to act at greater heights,
accordingly he believed that it would be found in operation as far as
the moon, and he suspected that it might be the force which retained
that body in its path round the earth.

This hypothesis he verified thus. If a stone is allowed to fall near
the surface of the earth, the attraction of the earth causes it to
move through sixteen feet in one second: also Kepler's Laws, if
accurate and applicable, involve the conclusion that the attraction
of the earth on a distant body varies inversely as the square of its
distance from the earth. Now the radius of the earth and the distance
of the moon were known to Newton, and therefore, on this hypothesis,
he could find the magnitude of the earth's attraction on the moon.
Further, assuming that the moon moved in a circle, he could calculate
the force required to retain it in its orbit. At this time his
estimate of the radius of the earth was inaccurate, and, when he made
the calculation, he found that this force was rather greater than the
earth's attraction on the moon. The discrepancy did not shake his
faith in his theory, but he conjectured that the moon's motion was
also affected by other influences, such for example, as the effect of
a resisting medium which might itself be in motion as supposed by
Descartes in his hypothetical vortices.

In 1679 Newton knew with approximate correctness the value of the
radius of the earth. He repeated his calculations, and found the
results to be in accordance with his former hypothesis. He then
proceeded to the general theory of the motion of a particle under a
force directed to a fixed point, and showed that the vector to the
particle would sweep over equal areas in equal times. He also proved
that, if a particle describes an ellipse under a force directed to a
focus, the law must be that of the inverse square of the distance from
the focus, and conversely, that the orbit of a particle projected in
free space under the influence of such a force must be a conic. The
application to the solar system was obvious, since Kepler had shown
that the planets describe ellipses with the sun in one focus, and that
the vectors from the sun to them sweep over equal areas in equal
times. This investigation was made for his own satisfaction and was
not published at the time. In it he treated the solar bodies as if
they were particles, and he must have realized that the results could
be taken as being only approximately correct.

In 1684 the subject of the planetary orbits was discussed in London
by Halley, Hooke, and Wren. They were aware that, if Kepler's
conclusions were correct, the attraction of the sun or earth on a
distant external particle must vary inversely as the square of the
distance, but they could not determine the orbit of a particle
subjected to the action of a central force of this kind. It was
suggested that Newton might be able to assist them. Accordingly in
August, Halley went to Cambridge for a talk on the subject, and then
found that Newton had solved the problem some five years previously,
and that the path was necessarily a conic. At Halley's request Newton
wrote out the substance of his argument, and sent it to London.

Halley at once realized the importance of the communication, and later
in the autumn returned to Cambridge to urge Newton to prosecute the
theory further. He found that Newton had already done something in the
matter, the results being contained in a manuscript which he saw.
Probably this reference is to the holograph manuscript, still
preserved in the University Library at Cambridge, of Newton's lectures
in the Michaelmas Term, which served as the basis of his memoir sent
to the Royal Society a few months later. The great value of these
investigations was recognized, and Newton was persuaded to attack the
more general problem. His results are given in the _Principia_.

As yet Newton had dealt with the problem as if the sun and the planets
might be regarded as heavy masses concentrated at their centres.
Clearly at the best this was only an approximation, though considering
the enormous distances involved it was not unreasonable. In January or
February, 1685, he considered the question of the attraction of bodies
of finite size, and found, to his surprise and gratification, that
a sphere or spherical shell attracts an external particle as if
condensed into a heavy mass at its centre. Hence the results he had
already proved for the relative motion of particles were true for the
solar system, save for small errors due partly to the fact that the
bodies were not perfectly spherical and partly to disturbances caused
by the planets attracting one another. It was no longer a question of
rough approximation: the problem was reducible to mathematical
analysis, subject to the introduction of minute corrections, which,
given the necessary observations, could be calculated very closely.
This was a new discovery of first-rate importance, and initiated the
modern theory of attractions.

The first book of the _Principia_ was finished before the summer of
1685. It deals with the motion of particles or bodies in free space
either in known orbits or under the action of known forces. In it
the law of attraction is generalized into the statement that every
particle of matter attracts every other particle with a force which
varies directly as the product of their masses and inversely as the
square of the distance between them. Thus gravitation was brought into
the domain of Science.

The second book was completed by the summer of 1686. It treats of
motion in a resisting medium and of various problems connected with
waves. At the end of it, it is shown that the Cartesian theory of
vortices is inconsistent with the laws of motion, and necessarily
leads to incorrect results. This book opened another world to the
application of mathematics and, in effect, created the science of
hydrodynamics.

The third book was finished in March 1687. In this, the theorems
previously established are applied to the chief phenomena of the
universe, and briefly we may say that all the facts then known about
the solar system and, in particular, the motion of the moon with its
various inequalities, the figure of the earth, and the phenomena of
the tides, were shown to be in accord with the theory. Much of the
material for these calculations was collected by Flamsteed and Halley.

The _Principia_, as I have said, is a classic. Like other books to
which that compliment is paid, it is rarely read: indeed, I doubt
whether there are a dozen men in Cambridge who have glanced all
through it, even in a cursory manner. When I was an undergraduate the
course for the Tripos involved five sections (1, 2, 3, 9, and 11) of
the first book, but now, probably with good reason, even this slight
acquaintance with the work is no longer required, and to-day the
character of these investigations is unfamiliar to most
mathematicians, while the fact that it is written in Latin tends to
diminish the number of its readers. I will, then, with your
permission, describe briefly its frame-work.

First, however, let me remark on how different was the knowledge of
mathematics, even among experts, at the time it was written from
that current to-day. In the geometry of the circle and conics
mathematicians were familiar with the methods of Greek science, and in
their application Newton was unrivalled among his contemporaries, but
outside geometry methods of investigation were far to seek. Analysis
had been but little developed; algebraic notation had only recently
taken definite form; trigonometry was still used mainly as an adjunct
to astronomy; analytical geometry had been invented by Descartes, but
no text-books on it of modern type were available; while nothing about
the calculus had been published. Mechanics, however, had recently been
treated as a science--statics by Stevinus and dynamics by Galileo--and
this paved the way for Newton's investigations. In particular,
Galileo had established principles which foreshadowed the first two
laws of motion, and had deduced formulae in linear motion like
_v² = 2fs_, _s = ½ft²_, and in circular motion like _f = v²/r_.

Newton prefaced the _Principia_ by explaining that the earliest
problems in natural philosophy which attract attention are connected
with the phenomena of motion, and it was with motion that the book
dealt. To discuss motion effectively, it was necessary to give
precision to the language used, and accordingly he propounded
definitions of mass, momentum, inertia, and so on, which have settled
the language of the subject. He next enunciated his three well-known
laws of motion, and described the experiments on which he based them.
He followed this up by deducing rules for the composition and
resolution of forces, and discussed relative motion.

This preliminary matter is followed by the first book, concerned with
the motion of bodies in an unresisting medium. It is divided into
fourteen sections containing ninety-eight propositions with various
interpolated lemmas, corollaries, and scholia.

The first section is on the method of prime and ultimate ratios, by
the use of which Newton was able, in effect, to integrate. He applied
this to the curvature and the areas of curves, and proved that, at
the very beginning of the motion of a body from rest under any force,
the space described is proportional to the force and the square of the
time.

The second section is concerned with the motion of a particle under a
central force. It contains the well-known propositions that if the
force is central the area swept out by the vector to the centre is
proportional to the time, and conversely that if such area is
proportional to the time the particle is acted on by a central force.
Newton further discussed particular cases of circular, elliptic, and
spiral motion. In the third section he dealt with motion in a conic
under a central force to the focus, showed that in this case the force
must vary inversely as the square of the distance, and conversely that
if a particle be projected from any point in any direction with any
velocity under such a force it must describe a conic about the centre
of force as a focus, and that in such elliptic orbits the periodic
times are in the sesquiplicate ratio of the major axes of the
ellipses. He also explained how to treat the problem if disturbing
forces are introduced. These two sections solved the problem of
planetary motion if the planets could be treated as particles and did
not disturb one another's motions.

The fourth and fifth sections are given up to the proof of certain
geometrical propositions in conics required for subsequent
discussions: in particular the construction of a conic when a focus
and three other conditions or when five points on it or five tangents
to it are given.

In the sixth section Newton returned to the problem of the motion of a
particle in an ellipse under a central force to a focus, and discussed
how to determine the position of the particle at any given time.
(Kepler's Problem.)

The seventh and eighth sections are devoted to the motion of a
particle under a central force which is any function of the distance.
The geometrical treatment of these problems is ingenious, but
necessarily more involved than when modern analysis is used.

In the ninth section Newton dealt with the motion of particles in
orbits which are revolving about the centre of force, and on the
motion of the apses of such orbits: this introduced the theory of
disturbing forces. The tenth section is concerned with constrained
motion, and particularly with the motion of pendulums. The eleventh
section deals with the motion of particles under their mutual
attractions and incidentally with the problem of three bodies. These
three sections afford a notable illustration of Newton's analytical
powers.

The twelfth and thirteenth sections deal with the attraction under
various laws of force of spherical bodies, circular laminae, and
solids of revolution. These sections brought the problem of the solar
system, consisting of solid bodies of finite size and approximately
spherical in form, into the domain of mathematics, and led up to the
generalization that all particles of matter attract one another with a
force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely
proportional to the square of the distance between them, from which
law it would seem that all the known phenomena of the motions of the
solar system can be deduced.

The fourteenth section is concerned with the motion of minute
corpuscles, with applications to the corpuscular theory of light.

The second book is devoted to the discussion of the motion of bodies
in resisting mediums: there are fifty-three propositions besides
lemmas, scholia, etc.

In the first section, Newton considered the motion of a particle or
sphere moving in a medium whose resistance varies as the velocity of
the particle: in the second section the resistance is assumed to vary
as the square of the velocity: and in the third section the resistance
is supposed to consist of two terms, one varying as the velocity and
the other as the square of the velocity. The fourth section is on
spiral motion caused by resistance of the medium.

The fifth section deals with the density and pressure of liquids and
gases at rest (Hydrostatics).

The sixth section treats of the motion of pendulums in a resisting
medium; and the seventh section is concerned with the motion of
fluids, and the resistance they offer to the motion of projectiles.
The latter section contains the celebrated statement of the form of
the solid of least resistance, whose demonstration proved a puzzle to
mathematicians until the invention of the calculus of variations.
Newton's solution is in the Portsmouth papers, and elsewhere I have
published it: it involves the use of fluxions, and it is probable that
it was his failure to translate this demonstration into geometrical
language that led him to give the result without a proof.

The eighth section deals with the motion of waves with applications to
the theory of sound and the undulatory theory of light; and the ninth
section deals with vortices; it is here shown that the theory of
vortices suggested by Descartes to explain the motion of the solar
system is untenable.

This book created the theory of hydrodynamics. Much of it is
incomplete, but it is astonishing that Newton proved as much as he
did; of course to-day no one would suggest that the best way of
attacking these problems is by Newtonian geometrical methods.

The third book contains the practical application of the propositions
in the two earlier books to the solar system. I need not describe this
in detail. In order to justify this application, Newton commenced by
laying down four rules which have since been accepted as binding in
scientific investigations. These, as given in the third edition, are
to the following effect: (1) We are not to assume more causes than are
sufficient and necessary for the explanation of observed facts.
(2) Hence, as far as possible, similar effects must be assigned to the
same cause; for instance, the fall of stones in Europe and America.
(3) Properties common to all bodies within reach of our experiments
are to be assumed as pertaining to all bodies; for instance,
extension. (4) Propositions in science obtained by a wide induction
are to be regarded as exactly or approximately true, until phenomena
or experiments show that they may be corrected or are liable to
exceptions. The substance of these rules is now accepted as the basis
of scientific investigation. Their formal enunciation here serves as a
landmark in the history of thought.

As soon as the Copernican view of the solar system was accepted, it
was natural for men to seek to explain the reason why the planets
moved as they did. Descartes, in 1644, had suggested that the
explanation might be found in the existence of vortices in space. This
conjecture, although based on arbitrary assumptions, and in fact
untenable, played an important part in the history of the subject,
for it accustomed men to think that planetary phenomena might be
explicable by the same laws as are found to be true on the earth.
That this was so was established by Newton in his _Principia_, where
all the motions of the solar system were made to depend on one
assumption as to the law of attraction. The question whether this law
could itself be deduced from some more fundamental assumption was
raised by Newton, but he could not devise a satisfactory hypothesis.
It has been discussed again and again since his time, and the problem
is still unsolved.

Newton's conclusions were immediately accepted in Britain, and very
rapidly by the leading mathematicians in Europe: indeed Huygens came
expressly from Holland in order to make the personal acquaintance of
a writer whose work promised to revolutionize the history of science.
The refutation of the Cartesian hypothesis ran, however, counter to
the sentiments and wishes of a certain number of philosophers, and
some few years elapsed before the truth of the gravitation theory was
universally admitted, but it would be ungracious to dwell further on
this. In Britain the work exercised a profound influence in philosophy
as well as in science, and educated men of all schools of thought
acquainted themselves with the general line of Newton's reasoning and
his deductions.

That men of science and philosophers should have approved Newton's
theory is not surprising, but it is somewhat curious that it excited
so little opposition among theologians. Galileo's discoveries of
hills, vales, and (supposed) seas on the moon and planets had already
suggested that life might exist there, and in the popular (but
illogical) view this involved the idea of the existence of beings with
spiritual and intellectual faculties not unlike those of men. Newton's
results seemed to show that there was nothing in the nature of things
to differentiate the earth from the other planets, and therefore
considerably strengthened the view that life might be found on them.
It might well be asked whether such life, and indeed whether the
mechanism of the solar system as expounded by Newton, was in
accordance with Scripture. That these difficulties were not pressed
against Newton's conclusions is, I think, attributable to the fact
that his theory was explicitly concerned only with non-organic matter.
His own opinion was that the extension of the reign of law was an
additional argument in favour of a divine creation: this view, set out
at the end of the _Principia_ and in his five letters to Bentley in
1692-93, was generally accepted by the leaders of religious thought in
Britain.

Lagrange more than once remarked that Newton was not only the greatest
mathematician of former days, but the most fortunate, since, as there
is but one universe, it can happen to but one man in the world's
history to be the interpreter of its laws. It is true that Newton
applied his theory only to the solar system for which alone he had the
necessary data, but after the publication of the _Principia_, no one
doubted that gravity extended to the most distant regions of space.
The work of Sir William Herschel and that of all later astronomers on
binary and other systems rests on this hypothesis.

The influence of the _Principia_ on dynamical astronomy has been
permanent. It is not too much to say that when it was published, the
theory, as there set out, had outstripped observation, but during the
succeeding century large numbers of new facts were collected, and
applications of the theory to new problems were made, notably by
Clairaut, Euler, and Lagrange. All these researches tended to confirm
it.

The demonstrations in the _Principia_ are expressed in the language of
classical geometry, and, though unnecessarily concise and difficult,
their correctness is unimpeachable. That Newton could carry his
calculations so far with the limited mathematics then at his command
is not the least wonderful part of the performance, but it is the
prerogative of genius to get great results with but scanty equipment.

Newton's methods, which even in the seventeenth century were archaic,
became in time quite out of date. This reason, the growth of the
subject, and the development of analysis made it desirable to expound
dynamical astronomy afresh. Towards the end of the eighteenth century
the task was undertaken by Laplace in his _Mécanique Céleste_. This is
far more than the translation of the _Principia_ into the language of
modern analysis, for it greatly extends the theory of some branches of
the subject which had been left incomplete by Newton, either on
account of his not having the requisite analysis at his command or
because the necessary facts were not available. Laplace acknowledged
his debt to Newton, and expressed his deliberate opinion that the
_Principia_ was pre-eminent over every previous production of human
genius--"so near the gods, man cannot nearer go." A century later a
fresh exposition of the subject embodying the discoveries of the
nineteenth century was given by F.F. Tisserand in his _Mécanique
Céleste_; this presents the subject in its modern form.

Newton had applied his theory to the solar system as it existed, and
had not investigated its origin. We owe to Laplace the enunciation of
a hypothesis as to its evolution. According to this conjecture, the
solar system originated in a quantity of incandescent gas rotating
round an axis through its centre of mass. Laplace assumed that as this
gas cooled, it would contract, and that successive rings would break
off from its outer edge; these rings in their turn would cool, and
finally condense into the planets with their satellites; while the sun
represents the central core which would be left. Recent investigations
show that this cannot be taken as correct without numerous
modifications. Moreover every extension of our knowledge requires the
introduction of alterations in the hypothesis, and this clearly
suggests that the conjecture is untenable. It played, however, a
useful part in its day, as suggesting a common origin for all members
of the system. Perhaps I ought to add that a nebular origin had been
previously outlined by Kant, who had also suggested meteoric
aggregations and tidal friction as agents concerned, but these were
little more than vague conjectures.

The _Principia_ convinced its readers that the laws of mechanics,
discovered by experiment on the earth, were operative throughout the
solar system. It was reserved for the nineteenth century to extend the
reign of law to other celestial phenomena. Newton and his successors
had proved that the law of gravity extends through all parts of space
where observations are possible. That the sun, stars, and planets are
constituted of similar materials was generally believed; and this has
now been confirmed by the use of the spectroscope which has enabled us
to calculate the temperature of gaseous stars, and specify the
chemical elements comprised in them. Thus the composition of
far-distant suns has been reduced to problems to be settled in our
laboratories. The scientific world, however, in admitting the validity
of the theory of universal gravity had implicitly accepted the
principle that the reign of law, as investigated on the earth, extends
throughout the universe. Thus the daring which permits us, living on a
medium-sized planet attached to one of the smaller suns, to analyse
the universe is, I venture to say, the direct outcome of the genius of
Newton as displayed in his _Principia_.




CHAPTER XIV.

ISAAC NEWTON ON UNIVERSITY STUDIES.


Among the Portsmouth papers in the University Library at Cambridge[33]
is a memorandum by Isaac Newton, drawn up, I conjecture, towards the
close of the seventeenth century, on the organization of the studies
and on the discipline of the University.

Conditions then differed so widely from those now in force that the
value of the memorandum is only historical, but notwithstanding this,
its interest is considerable. I have no reason to suppose that it was
formally brought before the regent or the non-regent house, and
possibly the plan never got beyond discussion by a few friends. I have
modernized the spelling, made the use of capitals uniform, allowed
myself to break paragraphs, and sometimes inserted punctuation or
altered it--otherwise the paper is as originally written. I give it
without further comment.


_Newton's Memorandum._

"Undergraduates to be instructed by a Tutor, a Humanity Lecturer, a
Greek Lecturer, a Philosophy Lecturer, and a Mathematic Lecturer.

"The Tutor to read logic, ethics, the globes and principles of
geography and chronology in order to understand history, unless the
Lecturers have time for any of these things.

"The Humanity and Greek Lecturers to set tasks in Latin and Greek
authors once a day to the first year, and once a week to the rest; and
to examine diligently and instruct briefly; and to punish by exercises
such faults as concern lectures; and to appoint the reading of the
best historians.

"The Philosophy Lecturer to read first of things introductory to
natural philosophy--time, space, body, place, motion and its laws,
force, mechanical powers, gravity and its laws, hydrostatics,
projectiles solid and fluid, circular motions and the forces
relating to them. And then to read natural philosophy, beginning with
the general system of the world, and thence proceeding to the
particular constitution of this earth and the things therein--meteors,
elements, minerals, vegetables, animals, and ending with anatomy if he
have skill therein. Also to examine in logic and ethics.

"The Mathematic Lecturer to read first some easy and useful practical
hings; then Euclid, spherics, the projections of the sphere, the
construction of maps, trigonometry, astronomy, optics, music, algebra,
etc. Also to examine and (if the Tutor be deficient) to instruct in
the principles of chronology and geography.

"Several sciences which depend not on one another are all learnt in
less time together than successively, the mind being diverted and
recreated by the variety, and put more upon the stretch. And
therefore divers of these Lecturers may proceed together: suppose the
Tutor's [lectures] after morning chapel, the Greek or Philosophy
Lecturer's two hours after, and the Humanity and Mathematic
[Lecturers'] in the afternoon. The Tutor to accompany his pupils to
the philosophy and mathematic lectures, and to examine them the next
morning both in those lectures and in his own, and make them
understand where they hesitate. These two Lecturers to read five days
in the week and with the other two [Lecturers] to examine the sixth.
Each Lecturer to read the same day successively to two or three years
[_i.e._, to Freshmen, Junior Sophs, or Senior Sophs as the case may
be] under [their] several Tutors. Their lectures to begin with [the]
Michaelmas Term and continue till the Commencement [_i.e._ the end of
the Easter Term]: the Tutors to begin the Commencement before. The
Greek and Humanity Lecturers to set bigger tasks in the vacations than
in the reading-time, proportionally to the spare hours of the
students.

"A Monitor to note those who miss lectures, and give their names to
the Humanity Lecturer, who shall punish them, not by pecuniary mulcts,
but by tasks [, such as] by making verses, themes, epistles, or
getting anything without book. All pecuniary mulcts of Undergraduates
to be abolished; and exercises, admonitions, recantations, and
expulsions (according to the nature of the crime) to succeed in their
room.

"In the Long Vacation, between the Commencement and Michaelmas, the
Tutor shall take care that his Pupils read over all the last year's
lessons again by themselves, and at the end of the vacation they shall
be examined again, and those, who are at any time found not fit to go
on, turned down to the lectures of the year below, that they do not
retard the Lecturer and be an ill example to others.

"The Lecturers to be chosen every three years, and the elections after
the first institution to be on this manner. All those who have at any
time been Lecturers shall choose four out of their number, one for
each office, and the Master and Seniors of the College shall choose
other four who have not yet executed the office, and those eight with
the Master shall, by balancing, choose four out their number. [There
shall be] no regard to seniority or anything but merit. The Lecturers
to choose yearly a Public Tutor, and to reprehend or displace him if
there be reason. This Tutor without a new election to take none but
those admitted in his year of office until their course of lectures be
gone through. No Private Tutor to take two years together. All sizars,
poor scholars, and scholars of the House to be under Public Tutors,
except Westminster scholars of Trinity College when the Tutor is of
another school.

"For encouraging able and fit men to accept of the Readers' places,
their fellowships during their office shall be doubled by the
addition of four other fellowships kept vacant for the purpose, one,
for each, unless some other competent provision be made for any of
them. And because the Philosophy and Mathematic Lecturers' office is
laborious, for encouraging them to diligence none shall be compelled
to come to their lectures, but all that will be auditors shall offer
each of them a quarterly gratuity; suppose of 10s. the sizar, 12s. or
15s. the pensioner, and 20s. or 25s. the fellow-commoner. And to
encourage auditors those shall be preferred to scholarships and
fellowships which are best skilled in all sciences, _caeteris
paribus_, and shall have seniority of those that come not to lectures.
This institution to begin in the greater colleges, and be carried on
in the rest as men qualified and revenues can be had. In smaller
colleges the Mathematic Lecturer may be omitted, and only a power
granted the College of instituting one when they can. Also the Greek
Lecturer's office may be supplied by the Humanity Lecturer when it
shall be thought fit. A gratuity to be given by all the first year to
the Greek and Humanity Lecturers.

"For securing the Tutor and making his office desirable by fit
persons, every student at his admission to deposit caution money in
the hands of the bursar of the College; suppose £10 or £12 the sizar,
£16 or £20 the pensioner, and £30 or £40 the fellow-commoner. And in
case any pupil at the end of any quarter be in his Tutor's debt, and
do not discharge it within six weeks after his receipt of the quarter
bill, the Bursar to discharge it, and return back the residue upon
demand, and the Tutor forthwith upon pain of forfeiting his office, to
send home the pupil. Yet may the pupil be received again with a new
supply of money. This institution to be universal. The Master and
Seniors to regulate the expenses of all under tuition by certain
limits common to them all, and the Senior Dean to read over and sign
all their quarter bills. Extravagant pupils, after one admonition,
to be sent away.

"Fellow-commoners to perform all exercises in their courses, and to be
equally subject to their Tutors and Governors with other scholars and
alike punishable by exercises, and those who are resty or idle to be
sent away lest they spoil others by their bad example. They shall read
geography, chronology, and mathematics the first year.

"All students who will be admitted to lectures in natural philosophy
to learn first geometry and mechanics. By mechanics I mean here the
demonstrative doctrine of forces and motions, including hydrostatics.
For without a judgment in these things a man can have none in
philosophy.

"Whenever the major part of the Mathematic Lecturers in the University
shall desire [it] a Master [shall be appointed] to teach
fellow-commoners and others arithmetic and designing. The University
shall allow him £10 yearly out of their Common Chest, and he shall
observe the orders of the Mathematic Lecturers and be placed or
displaced by the major part of them at pleasure.

"All graduates without exception found by the Proctors in taverns or
other drinking houses, unless with travellers at their inns, shall at
least have their names given in to the Vice-Chancellor, who shall
summon them to answer it before the next Consistory.

"The Deans to visit the chambers of all undergraduates once at least
every week, upon pain of forfeiting 10s. to the Lecturers for every
omission.

"Fasting nights have a shadow of religion without any substance. 'Tis
only supping more pleasantly out of the public hall. And this does
great mischief by sending young students to find suppers abroad, where
they get into company and grow debauched. Whether would it not be
better to license undergraduates to sup together in such places as the
Dean shall appoint, with a Monitor to note the names of the absent?

"All these lectures to consist in extemporary explications of books in
such an easy, short, and clear manner as may be most profitable to the
auditors. And if any Lecturer or other person shall compose any
treatise which shall be preferred and used by the major part of the
Mathematic or Philosophic Lecturers, the University shall give the
author either £20, or if those Lecturers request it, £30, £40 or £50,
out of their Common Chest.

"Commissioners to be appointed for some years to set on foot, inspect,
and amend the institution.

"No oaths of office to be imposed on the Lecturers. I do not know a
greater abuse of religion than that sort of oaths: they being harder
to be kept than the Jewish Law, so that yearly absolutions have been
instituted. The papists, who believe such absolutions, might be
excused for instituting such oaths, but we have no such doctrine, and
yet continue their practices. Admonitions and pecuniary mulcts for
neglect of duty are less cruel punishments than the consequence of
perjury, and may be as effectual."


[Footnote 33: Camb. Univ. Library, Newton MSS. section viii, No. 5.
Add. 4005/6, A.]




CHAPTER XV.

THE HISTORY OF THE MATHEMATICAL TRIPOS.


The Mathematical Tripos has played so prominent a part in the history
of education at Cambridge and of mathematics in England, that a sketch
of its development[34] may be interesting to general readers.

So far as mathematics is concerned the history of the University
before Newton may be summed up very briefly. The University was
founded towards the end of the twelfth century. Throughout the middle
ages, the instruction given to students was organized on lines similar
to those current at Paris and Oxford, and to qualify for a degree it
was necessary to perform various exercises, and especially to keep a
number of _acts_ or to oppose acts kept by other students. An act
consisted in effect of a debate in Latin, thrown, at any rate in
later times, into syllogistic form. It was commenced by one student,
the _respondent_, stating some proposition, often propounded in the
form of a thesis, which was attacked by an _opponent_ or _opponents_,
the discussion being controlled by a senior graduate. The teaching was
largely in the hands of young graduates--every master of arts being
compelled to reside and teach for at least one year--though no doubt
colleges and private hostels supplemented this instruction in the case
of their own students.

The reformation in England was largely the work of Cambridge divines,
and in the University the renaissance was warmly welcomed. In spite of
the disorder and confusion of the Tudor period, new studies and a
system of professional instruction were introduced. The earliest
lectureships created by the University seem to have been one in Latin
established in or before 1492 and one in mathematics established in or
before 1501: they mark the beginning of the system of teaching by
experts which has superseded the medieval system of compulsory
teaching by all regent masters. The fact that one of these
lectureships was in mathematics shows that as early as 1500 the
subject was regarded as important. Tunstall, subsequently the most
eminent English arithmetician of his time, migrated in 1496 from
Oxford to Cambridge, and most of the subsequent English
mathematicians of the Tudor period were at Cambridge; of these I may
mention Record (who migrated, probably about 1535, from Oxford), Dee,
Digges, Blundeville, Buckley, Billingsley, Hill, Bedwell, Hood,
Richard and John Harvey, Edward Wright, Briggs, and Oughtred. Under
the Elizabethan statutes of 1570, notwithstanding many disadvantages,
the mathematical school continued to grow. Horrox, Seth Ward, Foster,
Rooke, Gilbert Clerke, Pell, Wallis, Barrow, Dacres, and Morland may
be cited as prominent Cambridge mathematicians of the succeeding
century.

Newton's mathematical career dates from 1665; his reputation,
abilities, and influence attracted general attention to the subject.
He created a school of mathematics and mathematical physics, among the
earliest members of which I note the names of Laughton, Samuel Clarke,
Craig, Flamsteed, Whiston, Saunderson, Jurin, Taylor, Cotes, and
Robert Smith. Since then Cambridge has been regarded as, in a special
sense, the home of English mathematicians, and from 1706 onwards we
have fairly complete accounts of the course of reading and work of
mathematical students.

Until less than a century ago the form of the method of qualifying for
a degree remained substantially unaltered, but the subject-matter of
the discussions varied from time to time with the prevalent studies
of the place.

After the renaissance some of the statutable exercises were "huddled,"
that is, were reduced to a mere form. To huddle an act, the proctor
generally asked some question such as _Quid est nomen?_ to which the
answer usually expected was _Nescio_. In these exercises considerable
license was allowed, particularly if there were any play on the words
involved. For example, J. Brass, of Trinity, was accosted with the
question, _Quid est aes?_ to which he answered, _Nescio nisi finis
examinationis_. It should be added that retorts such as these were
only allowed in the pretence exercises, and a candidate who in the
actual examination was asked to give a definition of happiness and
replied, "An exemption from Payne"--that being the name of his
questioner--was plucked for want of discrimination in time and place.
In earlier years even the farce of huddling seems to have been
unnecessary, for it was said in 1675 that it was not uncommon for the
proctors to take "cautions for the performance of the statutable
exercises, and accept the forfeit of the money so deposited in lieu of
their performance."

In medieval times acts had been usually kept on some scholastic
question or on a proposition taken from the _Sentences_. About the
end of the fifteenth century religious questions, such as the
interpretation of biblical texts, began to be introduced. Some fifty
or sixty years later the favourite subjects were drawn either from
dogmatic theology or from philosophy. In the seventeenth century the
questions were usually philosophical, but in the eighteenth century,
under the influence of the Newtonian school, a large proportion of
them were mathematical.

Further details about these exercises and specimens of acts kept in
the eighteenth century are given in my _History of Mathematics at
Cambridge_. Here I will only say that they provided an admirable
training in the art of presenting an argument, and in dialectical
skill in attack and defence. The mental strain involved in keeping a
contested act was severe. De Morgan, describing his act kept in 1826,
wrote[35]:

  I was badgered for two hours with arguments given and answered in
  Latin--or what we call Latin--against Newton's first section,
  Lagrange's derived functions, and Locke on innate principles. And
  though I took off everything, and was pronounced by the moderator to
  have disputed _magno honore_, I never had such a strain of thought
  in my life. For the inferior opponents were made as sharp as their
  betters by their tutors, who kept lists of queer objections drawn
  from all quarters.

Had the language of the discussions been changed to English, as was
repeatedly urged from 1774 onwards, these exercises might have been
retained with advantage, but the barbarous Latin and the syllogistic
form in which they were carried on prejudiced their retention.

About 1830 a custom arose for the respondent and opponents to meet
previously and arrange their arguments together. The discussions then
became an elaborate farce, and were a mere public performance of what
had been already rehearsed. Accordingly the moderators of 1839 took
the responsibility of abandoning them. This action was singularly
high-handed, since a report of 30 May 1838, had recommended that they
should be continued, and there was no reason why they should not have
been reformed and retained as a useful feature in the scheme of study.

On the result of the acts, a list of those qualified to receive
degrees was drawn up. This list was not arranged strictly in order of
merit, because the proctors could insert names anywhere in it, but by
the beginning of the eighteenth century this power had become
restricted to the right reserved to the vice-chancellor, the senior
regent, and each proctor to place in the list one candidate anywhere
he liked--a right which continued to exist till 1828, though it was
not exercised after 1792. Except for the names of these "honorary
optimes," this final list was, until 1752, arranged in order of merit
into wranglers and senior optimes, junior optimes, and poll-men;
after 1752, the wranglers and senior optimes were placed in separate
classes. The bachelors on admission to their degrees took seniority
according to their order on this list. The title _wrangler_ is derived
from these contentious discussions; the title _optime_ from the
customary compliment given by the moderator to a successful disputant,
_Domine ..., optime disputasti_, or even _optime quidem disputasti_,
and the title of _poll-man_ from the description of this class as οἱ
πολλοί.

The final exercises for the bachelor of arts degree were never
huddled, and until 1839 were carried out strictly. University
officials were responsible for approving the subject-matter of these
acts. Stupid men offered some irrefutable truism, but the ambitious
student courted reputation by affirming some paradox. Probably all
honour men kept acts, but poll-men were deemed to comply with the
regulations by keeping opponencies. The proctors were responsible for
presiding at these acts, or seeing that competent graduates did so.
In and after 1649 two examiners were specially appointed for this
purpose. In 1680[36] these examiners were appointed by the senate with
the title of moderator, and with the joint stipend of four shillings
for everyone graduating as a bachelor of arts during their year of
office. In 1688 the joint stipend of the moderators was fixed at £40
a year. The moderators, like the proctors, were nominated by the
colleges in rotation.

From the earliest times the proctors had the power of questioning a
candidate at the end of a disputation, and probably all candidates for
a degree attended the public schools on certain days to give an
opportunity to the proctors (or any master who liked to take part in
the examination) to examine them[37], though the opportunity was not
always used. Such examinations were conducted in Latin, and originally
different candidates attended on different days. Soon after 1710[38]
the moderators or proctors began the custom of summoning on one day in
January all candidates whom they proposed to question, and conducting
the examination in English and in public: the examination did not last
more than one day, and was partly on philosophy and partly on
mathematics. It was from this examination that the Mathematical Tripos
developed.

This introduction of a regular oral examination seems to have been
mainly due to the fact that when, in 1710, George I gave the Ely
library to the University, it was decided to assign for its reception
the old senate-house--now the catalogue room in the library--and to
build a new room for the meetings of the senate. Pending the building
of the new senate-house the books were stored in the Schools, which
thus were rendered unavailable for keeping acts. In consequence of
this, considerable difficulty was found in arranging for all the
candidates to keep the full number of statutable exercises, and
obtaining opportunities to compare them one with another: hence the
introduction or extension of a supplementary oral examination. The
advantages of this examination as providing a ready means of testing
the knowledge and abilities of the candidates were so patent that it
was retained when the necessity for some system of the kind had passed
away, and finally it became systematized into an organized test to
which all questionists were subjected.

In 1731 the University raised the joint stipend of the moderators to
£60 "in consideration of their additional trouble in the Lent Term."
This would seem to indicate that the senate-house examination had then
taken formal shape, and perhaps that a definite scheme for its conduct
had become customary.

As long as the order of the list of those approved for degrees was
settled on the result of impressions derived from acts kept by the
different candidates at different times and on different subjects, it
was impossible to arrange the men in strict order of merit, nor was
much importance attached to the order. But, with the introduction of
an examination of all the candidates on one day, much closer attention
was paid to securing an accurate classification, and more confidence
felt in the published order. It seems to have been consequent on this
that in and after 1748 the final lists were regarded as authoritative
and important and that the names of the honorary optimes were
definitely indicated: the lists from this time appeared in the
_University Calendars_. The lists from 1748 to 1910, with the earlier
Ordines Senioritatis from 1499 to 1747, are printed in the _Historical
Register of the University_.

Of the detailed history of the examination until the middle of the
eighteenth century we know nothing. From 1750 onwards, however, we
have more definite accounts of it. At this time, it would seem that
all the men from each college were taken together as a class, and
questions passed down by the proctors or moderators till they were
answered: but the examination remained entirely oral, and technically
was regarded as subsidiary to the discussions which had been
previously held in the schools.

Each class contained men of very different abilities, and to meet
difficulties thus caused, a custom grew up by which every candidate
was liable to be taken aside to be questioned by any master of arts
who wished to do so, and this was regarded as an important part of the
examination. The examination now continued for two days and a half,
the subjects, as before, being mathematics and philosophy. At the
conclusion of the second day the moderators received the reports of
those masters of arts who had voluntarily taken part in the
examination, and provisionally settled the final list. The last
half-day was used in revising and rearranging the order of merit.

Richard Cumberland has left an account of the tests to which he was
subjected when he took his bachelor degree in 1751. Clearly the
disputations still played an important part, and it is difficult to
say what weight was attached to the subsequent senate-house
examination; his reference to it is only of a general character. After
saying that he kept two acts and two opponencies he continued[39]:

  The last time I was called upon to keep an act in the schools I sent
  in three questions to the Moderator, which he withstood as being all
  mathematical, and required me to conform to the usage of proposing
  one metaphysical question in the place of that, which I should think
  fit to withdraw. This was ground I never liked to take, and I
  appealed against his requisition: the act was accordingly put by
  till the matter of right should be ascertained by the statutes of
  the university, and in the result of that enquiry it was given for
  me, and my question stood.... I yielded now to advice, and paid
  attention to my health, till we were cited to the senate house to be
  examined for our Bachelor's degree. It was hardly ever my lot during
  that examination to enjoy any respite. I seemed an object singled
  out as every man's mark, and was kept perpetually at the table under
  the process of question and answer.

It was found possible by means of the new examination to differentiate
the better men more accurately than before; and accordingly, in 1753,
as above stated, the first class was subdivided into two, called
respectively wranglers and senior optimes, a division which is still
maintained.

The semi-official examination by masters of arts was regarded as the
more important part of the test, and the most eminent residents in the
University took part in it. Thus John Fenn, of Caius, 5th wrangler in
1761, wrote[40]:

  On the following Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, we sat in the
  Senate-house for public examination; during this time I was
  officially examined by the Proctors and Moderators, and had the
  honour of being taken out for examination by Mr Abbot, the
  celebrated mathematical tutor of St John's College, by the eminent
  professor of mathematics Mr Waring, of Magdalene, and by Mr Jebb of
  Peterhouse, a man thoroughly versed in the academical studies.

This irregular examination by any master who chose to take part in it
constantly gave rise to accusations of partiality.

In 1763 the traditional rules for the conduct of the examination took
more definite shape. Henceforth the examiners used the disputations
only as a means of classifying the men roughly. On the result of their
"acts," and probably partly also of their general reputation, the
candidates were divided into eight classes, each arranged in
alphabetical order. The subsequent position of the men in the class
was determined solely by the senate-house examination. The first two
classes comprised all who were expected to be wranglers, the next four
classes included the other candidates for honours, and the last two
classes consisted of poll-men only. Practically anyone placed in
either of the first two classes was allowed, if he wished, to take an
aegrotat senior optime, and thus escape all further examination: this
was called gulphing it.

All the men from one college were no longer taken together, but each
class was examined separately and _vivâ voce_; and hence, since all
the students comprised in each class were of about equal attainments,
it was possible to make the examination more effective. Richard
Watson, of Trinity, claimed that this change was made by him when
acting as moderator in 1763. He said[41]:

  There was more room for partiality ... then [_i.e._ in 1759] than
  there is now; and I attribute the change, in a great degree, to an
  alteration which I introduced the first year I was moderator [_i.e._
  in 1763], and which has been persevered in ever since. At the time
  of taking their Bachelor of Arts' degree, the young men are examined
  in classes, and the classes are now formed according to the
  abilities shown by individuals in the schools. By this arrangement,
  persons of nearly equal merits are examined in the presence of each
  other, and flagrant acts of partiality cannot take place. Before I
  made this alteration, they were examined in classes, but the classes
  consisted of members of the same College, and the best and worst
  were often examined together.

It is probable that before the examination in the senate-house began
a candidate, if manifestly placed in too low a class, was allowed the
privilege of challenging the class to which he was assigned. Perhaps
this began as a matter of favour, and was only granted in exceptional
cases, but a few years later it became a right which every candidate
could exercise; and I think that it is partly to its development that
the ultimate predominance of the tripos over the other exercises for
the degree is due.

In the same year, 1763, it was decided that the relative position of
the senior and second wranglers, namely, Paley, of Christ's, and
Frere, of Caius, was to be decided by the senate-house examination and
not by the disputations. Henceforward distinction in that examination
was regarded as the most important honour open to undergraduates.

In 1768 Robert Smith, of Trinity College, founded prizes for
mathematics and natural philosophy open to two commencing bachelors.
The examination followed immediately after the senate-house
examination, and the distinction, being much coveted, tended to
emphasize the mathematical side of the normal university education of
the best men. Since 1883 the prizes have been awarded on the result of
dissertations[42]. Additional prizes, awarded at the same time, and
associated with the name of Lord Rayleigh[43], were founded in 1909.

Until about 1770, the senate-house examination had been oral, but it
began now to be the custom to dictate some or all of the questions and
to require answers to be written. Only one question was dictated at a
time, and a fresh one was not given out until some student had solved
that previously read: a custom which by causing perpetual
interruptions to take down new questions must have proved very
harassing. We are perhaps apt to think that an examination conducted
by written papers is so natural that the custom is of long
continuance, but I know no record of any in Europe earlier than the
eighteenth century. Until 1830 the questions for the Smith's prizes
were dictated.

The following description of the senate-house examination as it
existed in 1772 was given by Jebb[44]:

  The moderators, some days before the arrival of the time prescribed
  by the vice-chancellor, meet for the purpose of forming the students
  into divisions of six, eight, or ten, according to their performance
  in the schools, with a view to the ensuing examination.

  Upon the first of the appointed days, at eight o'clock in the
  morning, the students enter the senate-house, preceded by a master
  of arts from each college, who ... is called the "father" of the
  college....

  After the proctors have called over the names, each of the
  moderators sends for a division of the students: they sit with him
  round a table, with pens, ink, and paper, before them: he enters
  upon his task of examination, and does not dismiss the set till the
  hour is expired. This examination has now for some years been held
  in the English language.

  The examination is varied according to the abilities of the
  students. The moderator generally begins with proposing some
  questions from the six books of Euclid, plain (_sic_) trigonometry,
  and the first rules of algebra. If any person fails in an answer,
  the question goes to the next. From the elements of mathematics,
  a transition is made to the four branches of philosophy, viz.
  mechanics, hydrostatics, apparent astronomy, and optics, as
  explained in the works of Maclaurin, Cotes, Helsham, Hamilton,
  Rutherforth, Keill, Long, Ferguson, and Smith. If the moderator
  finds the set of questionists, under examination, capable of
  answering him, he proceeds to the eleventh and twelfth books of
  Euclid, conic sections, spherical trigonometry, the higher parts of
  Algebra, and sir Isaac Newton's Principia; more particularly those
  sections, which treat of the motion of bodies in eccentric and
  revolving orbits; the mutual action of spheres, composed of
  particles attracting each other according to various laws; the
  theory of pulses, propagated through elastic mediums; and the
  stupendous fabric of the world. Having closed the philosophical
  examination, he sometimes asks a few questions in Locke's Essay on
  the human understanding, Butler's Analogy, or Clarke's Attributes.
  But as the highest academical distinctions are invariably given to
  the best proficients in mathematics and natural philosophy, a very
  superficial knowledge in morality and metaphysics will suffice.

  When the division under examination is one of the highest classes,
  problems are also proposed, with which the student retires to a
  distant part of the senate-house, and returns, with his solution
  upon paper, to the moderator, who, at his leisure, compares it with
  the solutions of other students, to whom the same problems have been
  proposed.

  The extraction of roots, the arithmetic of surds, the invention of
  divisers, the resolution of quadratic, cubic, and biquadratic
  equations; together with the doctrine of fluxions, and its
  application to the solution of questions "de maximis et minimis,"
  to the finding of areas, to the rectification of curves, the
  investigation of the centers of gravity and oscillation, and to the
  circumstances of bodies, agitated, according to various laws, by
  centripetal forces, as unfolded, and exemplified, in the fluxional
  treatises of Lyons, Saunderson, Simpson, Emerson, Maclaurin, and
  Newton, generally form the subject matter of these problems.

  When the clock strikes nine, the questionists are dismissed to
  breakfast: they return at half-past nine, and stay till eleven; they
  go in again at half-past one, and stay till three; and, lastly, they
  return at half-past three, and stay till five.

  The hours of attendance are the same upon the subsequent day.

  On the third day they are finally dismissed at eleven.

  During the hours of attendance, every division is twice examined in
  form, once by each of the moderators, who are engaged for the whole
  time in this employment.

  As the questionists are examined in divisions of only six or eight
  at a time, but a small portion of the whole number is engaged, at
  any particular hour, with the moderators; and, therefore, if there
  were no further examination, much time would remain unemployed.

  But the moderator's inquiry into the merits of the candidates forms
  the least material part of the examination.

  The "fathers" of the respective colleges, zealous for the credit of
  the societies, of which they are the guardians, are incessantly
  employed in examining those students, who appear most likely to
  contest the palm of glory with their sons.

  This part of the process is as follows:

  The father of a college takes a student of a different college
  aside, and, sometimes for an hour and an half together, strictly
  examines him in every part of mathematics and philosophy, which he
  professes to have read.

  After he hath, from this examination, formed an accurate idea of the
  student's abilities and acquired knowledge, he makes a report of his
  absolute or comparative merit to the moderators, and to every other
  father who shall ask him the question.

  Besides the fathers, all masters of arts, and doctors, of whatever
  faculty they be, have the liberty of examining whom they please; and
  they also report the event of each trial, to every person who shall
  make the inquiry.

  The moderators and fathers meet at breakfast, and at dinner. From
  the variety of reports, taken in connection with their own
  examination, the former are enabled, about the close of the second
  day, so far to settle the comparative merits of the candidates, as
  to agree upon the names of four-and-twenty, who to them appear most
  deserving of being distinguished by marks of academical approbation.

  These four-and-twenty [wranglers and senior optimes] are recommended
  to the proctors for their private examination; and, if approved by
  them, and no reason appears against such placing of them from any
  subsequent inquiry, their names are set down in two divisions,
  according to that order, in which they deserve to stand; are
  afterwards printed; and read over upon a solemn day, in the presence
  of the vice-chancellor, and of the assembled university.

  The names of the twelve [junior optimes], who, in the course of the
  examination, appear next in desert, are also printed, and are read
  over, in the presence of the vice-chancellor, and of the assembled
  university, upon a day subsequent to the former....

  The students, who appear to have merited neither praise nor censure
  [the poll-men], pass unnoticed: while those, who have taken no pains
  to prepare themselves for the examination, and have appeared with
  discredit in the schools, are distinguished by particular tokens of
  disgrace.

Jebb's statement about the number of wranglers and senior optimes is
only approximate.

It may be added that it was now frankly recognized that the
examination was competitive[45]. Also that though it was open to any
member of the senate to take part in it, yet the determination of the
relative merit of the students was entirely in the hands of the
moderators[46]. Although the examination did not occupy more than
three days it must have been a severe physical trial to anyone who was
delicate. It was held in winter and in the senate-house: that building
was then noted for its draughts, and was not warmed in any way; and,
according to tradition, on one occasion the candidates on entering in
the morning found the ink frozen in the pots on their desks.

The University was not altogether satisfied[47] with the regulations,
and in 1779[48] the scheme of examination was amended in various
respects. In particular the examination was extended to four days,
a third day being given up entirely to natural religion, moral
philosophy, and Locke's _Essay_. It was further announced[49] that a
candidate would not receive credit for advanced subjects unless he had
satisfied the examiners in Euclid's _Elements_ and elementary natural
philosophy.

A system of brackets or "classes quam minimae" was now introduced.
Under this system the examiners issued on the morning of the fourth
day a provisional list of men who had obtained honours, with the names
of those of about equal merit bracketed, and that day was devoted to
arranging the names in each bracket in order of merit: the examiners
being given explicit authority to invite the assistance of others in
this work. Whether at this time a candidate could request to be
re-examined with the view of being moved from one bracket to another
is uncertain, but later this also was allowed.

The number of examiners was also increased to four, the moderators of
one year becoming, as a matter of course, the examiners of the next.
Thus of the four examiners in each year, two had taken part in the
examination of the previous year, and the continuity of the system of
examination was maintained. The names of the moderators appear on the
tripos lists, but the names of the examiners were not printed on the
lists till some years later.

The right of any master of arts to take part in the examination was
not affected, though henceforth it was exercised more sparingly, and I
believe was not insisted on after 1785. But it became a regular custom
for the moderators to invite particular residents to examine and
compare specified candidates: Milner, of Queens', was constantly asked
to assist in this way.

It was not long before it became an established custom that a
candidate, who was dissatisfied with the class in which he had been
placed as the result of his disputations, might challenge it before
the examination began. This power seems to have been used but rarely;
it was, however, a recognition of the fact that a place in the tripos
list was to be determined by the senate-house examination alone, and
the examiners soon acquired the habit of settling the preliminary
classes without exclusive reference to the previous disputations.

The earliest extant paper actually set in the senate-house, to which
we can with certainty refer, is a problem paper set in 1785 or 1786 by
W. Hodson, of Trinity, then a proctor. The autograph copy from which
he gave out the questions was luckily preserved, and is in the
library[50] of Trinity College. It must be almost the last problem
paper which was dictated, instead of being printed and given as a
whole to the candidates. The paper is as follows:

  1. To determine the velocity with which a Body must be thrown, in
  a direction parallel to the Horizon, so as to become a secondary
  planet to the Earth; as also to describe a parabola, and never
  return.

  2. To demonstrate, supposing the force to vary as _1/D²_ how far a
  body must fall both within and without the Circle to acquire the
  Velocity with which a body revolves in a Circle.

  3. Suppose a body to be turned (_sic_) upwards with the Velocity
  with which it revolves in an Ellipse, how high will it ascend? The
  same is asked supposing it to move in a parabola.

  4. Suppose a force varying first as _1/D³_, secondly in a greater
  ratio than _1/D²_ but less than _1/D³_, and thirdly in a less ratio
  than _1/D²_, in each of these Cases to determine whether at all, and
  where the body parting from the higher Apsid will come to the lower.

  5. To determine in what situation of the moon's Apsid they go most
  forwards, and in what situation of her Nodes the Nodes go most
  backwards, and why?

  6. In the cubic equation _x³ + qx + r = 0_ which wants the second
  term; supposing _x = a + b_ and _3ab = -q_, to determine the value
  of _x_. (_sic._)

  7. To find the fluxion of _x^r × (y^n + z^m)^{1/q}_.

  8. To find the fluent of _aẋ / (a + x)_.

  9. To find the fluxion of the _m_^th power of the Logarithm of _x_.

  10. Of right-angled Triangles containing a given Area to find that
  whereof the sum of the two legs _AB + BC_ shall be the least
  possible. [This and the two following questions are illustrated by
  diagrams. The angle at _B_ is the right angle.]

  11. To find the Surface of the Cone _ABC_. [The cone is a right one
  on a circular base.]

  12. To rectify the arc _DB_ of the semicircle _DBV_.

In cases of equality in the senate-house examination, the acts were
still taken into account in settling the tripos order: and in 1786,
when the second, third, and fourth wranglers came out equal in the
examination, a memorandum was published that the second place was
given to that candidate who _dialectis magis est versatus_, and the
third place to that one who _in scholis sophistarum melius
disputavit_.

At this time there were various intervals in the examination by the
moderators, and the examinations by the extraneous examiners took
place in these intervals. Those candidates who at any time were not
being examined occupied themselves with amusements, provided they were
not too boisterous and obvious: probably dice and cards played a large
part in them. Gunning in an amusing account of his examination in 1788
talks of playing with a teetotum[51] on the Wednesday (when specified
works by Locke and Paley formed the subjects of examination), and says
this game "was carried on with great spirit ... by considerable
numbers during the whole of the examination."

About this period, 1790, the custom of printing the problem papers was
introduced, but until 1828 the other papers continued to be dictated.
Since then all the papers have been printed.

I insert here the following letter[52] from William Gooch, of Caius,
in which he described his examination in the senate-house in 1791. It
must be remembered that it is the letter of an undergraduate addressed
to his father and mother, and was not intended either for preservation
or publication: a fact which certainly does not detract from its
value.

  _Monday_ ¼ aft. 12.

  We have been examin'd this Morning in pure Mathematics & I've
  hitherto kept just about even with Peacock which is much more than
  I expected. We are going at 1 o'clock to be examin'd till 3 in
  Philosophy.

  From 1 till 7 I did more than Peacock; But who did most at
  Moderator's Rooms this Evening from 7 till 9, I don't know yet;--but
  I did above three times as much as the Sen^r Wrangler last year, yet
  I'm afraid not so much as Peacock.

  Between One & three o'Clock I wrote up 9 sheets of Scribbling Paper
  so you may suppose I was pretty fully employ'd.

  _Tuesday Night._

  I've been shamefully us'd by Lax to-day;--Tho' his anxiety for
  Peacock must (of course) be very great, I never suspected that his
  Partially (_sic_) w^d get the better of his Justice. I had
  entertain'd too high an opinion of him to suppose it.--he gave
  Peacock a long private Examination & then came to me (I hop'd) on
  the same subject, but 'twas only to _Bully_ me as much as he
  could,--whatever I said (tho' right) he tried to convert into
  Nonsense by seeming to misunderstand me. However I don't entirely
  dispair of being first, tho' you see Lax seems determin'd that I
  shall not.--I had no Idea (before I went into the Senate-House) of
  being able to contend at all with Peacock.

  _Wednesday evening._

  Peacock & I are still in perfect Equilibrio & the Examiners
  themselves can give no guess yet who is likely to be first;--a New
  Examiner (Wood of St. John's, who is reckon'd the first
  Mathematician in the University, for Waring doesn't reside) was
  call'd solely to examine Peacock & me only.--but by this new Plan
  nothing is yet determin'd.--So Wood is to examine us again to-morrow
  morning.

  _Thursday evening._

  Peacock is declar'd first & I second,--Smith of this Coll. is either
  8^th or 9^th & Lucas is either 10^th or 11^th.--Poor Quiz Carver is
  one of the οἱ πολλοί;--I'm perfectly _satisfied_ that the Senior
  Wranglership is Peacock's due, but _certainly_ not so very
  undisputably as Lax pleases to represent it--I understand that _he_
  asserts 'twas 5 to 4 in Peacock's favor. Now Peacock & I have
  explain'd to each other how we went on, & can _prove indisputably_
  that it wasn't 20 to 19 in his favor;--I _cannot_ therefore be
  displeas'd for being plac'd second, tho' I'm provov'd (_sic_) with
  Lax for his false report (so much beneath the Character of a
  Gentleman.)--

  N.B. it is my very _particular Request_ that you dont mention Lax's
  behaviour to me to any one.

Such was the form ultimately taken by the senate-house examination, a
form which it retained substantially without alteration for nearly
half-a-century. It soon became the sole test by which candidates were
judged. The University was not obliged to grant a degree to anyone who
performed the statutable exercises, and it was open to the senate to
refuse to pass a supplicat for a bachelor's degree in arts unless the
candidate had presented himself for the senate-house examination. In
1790 James Blackburn, of Trinity, a questionist of exceptional
abilities, was informed that in spite of his good disputations he
would not be allowed a degree unless he also satisfied the examiners
in the tripos. He accordingly solved one "very hard problem," though
in consequence of a dispute with the authorities he refused to attempt
any more[53].

Henceforth the examination was compulsory on all candidates pursuing
the normal course for the B.A. degree. In 1791 the University laid
down rules[54] for its conduct, so far as it concerned poll-men,
decreeing that those who passed were to be classified in four
divisions or classes, the names in each class to be arranged
alphabetically, but not to be printed on the official tripos lists.
The classes in the final lists must be distinguished from the eight
preliminary classes issued before the commencement of the examination.
The men in the first six preliminary classes were expected to take
honours; those in the seventh and eighth preliminary classes were
_primâ facie_ poll-men.

In 1799 the moderators announced[55] that for the future they would
require every candidate to show a competent knowledge of the first
book of Euclid's _Elements_, arithmetic, vulgar and decimal fractions,
simple and quadratic equations, and selected books by Locke and Paley.
Paley's works seem to be held in esteem by modern divines, and his
_Evidences_, though not his _Philosophy_, still remains (1917) one of
the subjects of the Previous Examination, but his contemporaries
thought less highly of his writings, or at any rate of his philosophy.
Thus Best is quoted by Wordsworth[56] as saying of Paley's
_Philosophy_, "The tutors of Cambridge no doubt neutralize by their
judicious remarks, when they read it to their pupils, all that is
pernicious in its principles": so also Richard Watson, bishop of
Llandaff, in his anecdotal autobiography[57], says, in describing the
senate-house examination in which Paley was senior wrangler, that
Paley was afterwards known to the world by many excellent productions,
"though there are some ... principles in his philosophy which I by no
means approve."

In 1800 the moderators extended to all men in the first four
preliminary classes the privilege of being allowed to attempt the
problem papers: hitherto this privilege had been confined to
candidates placed in the first two classes. Until 1828 the problem
papers were set in the evenings, and in the rooms of the moderator,
but many of the so-called problems were really pieces of bookwork or
easy riders. No problems were ever set to the men in the seventh and
eighth preliminary classes, which contained the poll-men.

The _University Calendars_ date from 1796, and from 1802 to 1882
inclusive contain the printed tripos papers of the previous January.
The papers from 1801 to 1820 and from 1838 to 1849 inclusive were also
published in separate volumes, which are to be found in most public
libraries. None of the bookwork papers of this time are now extant,
but it is believed that they contained few, if any, riders. In looking
at these papers to form an opinion of the knowledge current at the
time it is necessary to bear in mind that the text-books then in
circulation were far from satisfactory.

The _Calendar_ of 1802 contains a diffuse account of the examination.
It commences as follows:

  On the Monday morning, a little before eight o'clock, the students,
  generally about a hundred, enter the Senate-House, preceded by a
  master of arts, who on this occasion is styled the father of the
  College to which he belongs. On two pillars at the entrance of the
  Senate-House are hung the classes and a paper denoting the hours of
  examination of those who are thought most competent to contend for
  honours. Immediately after the University clock has struck eight,
  the names are called over, and the absentees, being marked, are
  subject to certain fines. The classes to be examined are called
  out, and proceed to their appointed tables, where they find pens,
  ink, and paper provided in great abundance. In this manner, with the
  utmost order and regularity, two-thirds of the young men are set to
  work within less than five minutes after the clock has struck eight.
  There are three chief tables, at which six examiners preside. At the
  first, the senior moderator of the present year and the junior
  moderator of the preceding year. At the second, the junior moderator
  of the present, and the senior moderator of the preceding year. At
  the third, two moderators of the year previous to the two last, or
  two examiners appointed by the Senate. The two first tables are
  chiefly allotted to the six first classes; the third, or largest, to
  the οἱ πολλοί.

  The young men hear the propositions or questions delivered by the
  examiners; they instantly apply themselves; demonstrate, prove, work
  out and write down, fairly and legibly (otherwise their labour is of
  little avail) the answers required. All is silence; nothing heard
  save the voice of the examiners; or the gentle request of some one,
  who may wish a repetition of the enunciation. It requires every
  person to use the utmost dispatch; for as soon as ever the examiners
  perceive anyone to have finished his paper and subscribed his name
  to it another question is immediately given....

  The examiners are not seated, but keep moving round the tables, both
  to judge how matters proceed and to deliver their questions at
  proper intervals. The examination, which embraces arithmetic,
  algebra, fluxions, the doctrine of infinitesimals and increments,
  geometry, trigonometry, mechanics, hydrostatics, optics, and
  astronomy, in all their various gradations, is varied according to
  circumstances: no one can anticipate a question, for in the course
  of five minutes he may be dragged from Euclid to Newton, from the
  humble arithmetic of Bonnycastle to the abstruse analytics of
  Waring. While this examination is proceeding at the three tables
  between the hours of eight and nine, printed problems are delivered
  to each person of the first and second classes; these he takes with
  him to any window he pleases, where there are pens, ink, and paper
  prepared for his operations.

The examination began at eight o'clock in the morning. At nine the
papers had to be given up, and half-an-hour was allowed for breakfast.
At half-past nine the candidates came back, and were examined in the
way described above till eleven, when the senate-house was again
cleared. An interval of two hours then took place. At one o'clock all
returned to be again examined. At three the senate-house was cleared
for half-an-hour, and, on the return of the candidates, the
examination was continued till five. At seven in the evening the first
four classes went to the senior moderator's rooms to solve problems.
They were finally dismissed for the day at nine, after eight hours of
examination. The work of Tuesday was similar to that of Monday:
Wednesday was partly devoted to logic and moral philosophy.

At eight o'clock on Thursday morning a first list was published with
all candidates of about equal merits bracketed. Until nine o'clock a
candidate had the right to challenge anyone above him to an
examination to see which was the better. At nine a second list came
out, and a candidate's right of challenge was then confined to the
bracket immediately above his own. If he proved himself the equal of
or better than the man so challenged his name was transferred to the
upper bracket. To challenge and then to fail to substantiate the claim
to removal to a higher bracket was considered rather ridiculous.
Revised lists were published at eleven, three, and five, according to
the results of the examination during that day. At five the whole
examination ended. The proctors, moderators, and examiners then
retired to a room under the public library to prepare the list of
honours, which was sometimes settled in a few hours, but sometimes not
before two or three the next morning. The name of the senior wrangler
was generally announced at midnight, and the rest of the list the next
morning. In 1802 there were eighty-six candidates for honours, and
they were divided into fifteen brackets, the first and second brackets
containing each one name only, and the third bracket four names.

It is clear from the above account that the competition fostered by
the examination had developed so much as to threaten to impair its
usefulness as guiding the studies of the men. On the other hand, there
can be no doubt that the carefully devised arrangements for obtaining
an accurate order of merit stimulated the best men to throw all their
energies into the work for the examination. It is easy to point out
the double-edged result of a strict order of merit. The problem before
the University was to retain its advantages while checking any abuses
to which it might lead.

It was the privilege of the moderators to entertain the proctors and
some of the leading resident mathematicians the night before the issue
of the final list, and to communicate that list in confidence to their
guests. This pleasant custom survived till 1884. I revived the
practice in 1890 when acting as senior moderator, but it seems to have
now ceased.

In 1806 Sir Frederick Pollock was senior wrangler, and in 1869 in
answer to an appeal from De Morgan for an account of the mathematical
study of men at the beginning of the century he wrote a letter[58]
which is sufficiently interesting to bear reproduction:

  I shall write in answer to your inquiry, _all_ about my books,
  my study, and my degree, and leave you to settle all about the
  proprieties which my letter may give rise to, as to egotism,
  modesty, &c. The only books I read the first year were Wood's
  _Algebra_ (as far as quadratic equations), Bonnycastle's ditto,
  and _Euclid_ (Simpson's). In the second year I read Wood (beyond
  quadratic equations), and Wood and Vince, for what they called the
  _branches_. In the third year I read the _Jesuit's_ Newton and
  Vince's _Fluxions_; these were all the _books_, but there were
  certain MSS. floating about which I copied--which belonged to
  Dealtry, second wrangler in Kempthorne's year. I have no doubt that
  I had read less and seen fewer books than any senior wrangler of
  about my time, or any period since; but what I knew I knew
  thoroughly, and it was completely at my fingers' ends. I consider
  that I was the last _geometrical_ and _fluxional_ senior wrangler;
  I was not up to the _differential_ calculus, and never acquired it.
  I went up to college with a knowledge of Euclid and algebra to
  quadratic equations, nothing more; and I never read any second
  year's lore during my first year, nor any third year's lore during
  my second; my _forte_ was, that what I _did_ know I _could produce
  at any moment with PERFECT accuracy_. I could repeat the first book
  of Euclid word by word and letter by letter. During my first year
  I was not a "_reading_" man (so called); I had no expectation of
  honours or a fellowship, and I attended all the lectures on all
  subjects--Harwood's anatomical, Wollaston's chemical, and Farish's
  mechanical lectures--but the examination at the end of the first
  year revealed to me my powers. I was not only in the first class,
  but it was generally understood I was _first_ in the first class;
  neither I nor anyone for me expected I should get in at all. Now, as
  I had taken no pains to prepare (taking, however, marvellous pains
  while the examination was going on), I knew better than anyone else
  the value of my _examination qualities_ (great rapidity and perfect
  accuracy); and I said to myself, "If you're not an ass, you'll be
  senior wrangler"; and _I took to "reading" accordingly_. A curious
  circumstance occurred when the Brackets came out in the Senate-house
  declaring the result of the examination: I saw at the top the name
  of Walter _bracketed alone_ (as he was); in the bracket below were
  _Fiott_, _Hustler_, _Jephson_. I looked down and could not find my
  own name till I got to Bolland, when my pride took fire, and I said,
  "I must have beaten _that man_, so I will look up again"; and on
  looking up carefully I found the nail had been passed through my
  name, and I was at the top bracketed _alone_, even above Walter. You
  may judge what my feelings were at this discovery; it is the only
  instance of two such brackets, and it made my fortune--that is, made
  me independent, and gave me an immense college reputation. It was
  said I was more than half of the examination before anyone else. The
  two moderators were Hornbuckle, of St John's, and Brown (Saint
  Brown), of Trinity. The Johnian congratulated me. I said perhaps
  I might be challenged; he said, "Well, if you are you're quite
  safe--you may sit down and do nothing, and no one would get up to
  you in a whole day." ...

  Latterly the Cambridge examinations seem to turn upon very different
  matters from what prevailed in my time. I think a Cambridge
  education has for its object to make good members of society--not
  to extend science and make profound mathematicians. The tripos
  questions in the Senate-house ought not to go beyond certain limits,
  and geometry ought to be cultivated and encouraged much more than
  it is.

To this De Morgan replied:

  Your letter suggests much, because it gives possibility of answer.
  The _branches_ of algebra of course mainly refer to the second part
  of Wood, now called the theory of equations. Waring was his guide.
  Turner--whom you must remember as head of Pembroke, senior wrangler
  of 1767--told a young man in the hearing of my informant to be sure
  and attend to quadratic equations. "It was a quadratic," said he,
  "made me senior wrangler." It seems to me that the Cambridge
  _revivers_ were [Woodhouse,] Waring, Paley, Vince, Milner.

  You had Dealtry's MSS. He afterwards published a very good book on
  fluxions. He merged his mathematical fame in that of a Claphamite
  Christian. It is something to know that the tutor's MS. was in vogue
  in 1800-1806.

  Now--how did you get your conic sections? How much of Newton did you
  read? From Newton direct, or from tutor's manuscript?

  Surely Fiott was our old friend Dr Lee. I missed being a pupil of
  Hustler by a few weeks. He retired just before I went up in February
  1823. The echo of Hornbuckle's answer to you about the challenge has
  lighted on Whewell, who, it is said, wanted to challenge Jacob, and
  was answered that he could not beat [him] if he were to write the
  whole day and the other wrote nothing. I do not believe that Whewell
  would have listened to any such dissuasion.

  I doubt your being the last fluxional senior wrangler. So far as I
  know, Gipps, Langdale, Alderson, Dicey, Neale, may contest this
  point with you.

The answer, dated 7 August 1869, of Sir Frederick Pollock to these
questions was as follows:

  You have put together as _revivers_ five very different men.
  Woodhouse was better than Waring, who could not prove Wilson's
  (Judge of C. P.) guess about the property of prime numbers; but
  Woodhouse (I think) did prove it, and a beautiful proof it is.
  Vince was a bungler, and I think utterly insensible of mathematical
  beauty.

  Now for your questions. I did not get my conic sections from Vince.
  I copied a MS. of Dealtry. I fell in love with the cone and its
  sections, and everything about it. I have never forsaken my
  favourite pursuit; I delighted in such problems as two spheres
  touching each other and also the inside of a hollow cone, &c. As to
  Newton, I read a good deal (men _now_ read nothing), but I read much
  of the notes. I detected a blunder which nobody seemed to be aware
  of. Tavel, tutor of Trinity, was not; and he argued very favourably
  of me in consequence. The application of the Principia I got from
  MSS. The blunder was this: in calculating the resistance of a globe
  at the end of a cylinder oscillating in a resisting medium they had
  forgotten to notice that there is a difference between the
  resistance to a globe and a circle of the same diameter.

  The story of Whewell and Jacob cannot be true. Whewell was a very,
  _very_ considerable man, I think not a _great_ man. I have no doubt
  Jacob beat him in accuracy, but the supposed answer _cannot_ be
  true; it is a mere echo of what actually passed between me and
  Hornbuckle on the day the Tripos came out--for the truth of which I
  vouch. I think the examiners are taking too _practical_ a turn; it
  is a waste of time to calculate _actually_ a longitude by the help
  of logarithmic tables and lunar observations. It would be a fault
  not to know _how_, but a greater to be handy at it.

A few minor changes in the senate-house examination were made in
1808[59]. A fifth day was added to the examination. Of the five days
thus given up to it three were devoted to mathematics, one to logic,
philosophy, and religion, and one to the arrangement of the brackets.
Apart from the evening paper the examination on each of the first
three days lasted six hours: of these eighteen hours, eleven were
assigned to bookwork and seven to problems. The problem papers were
set from six to ten in the evening.

A letter from Whewell, dated 19 January 1816, thus describes his
examination in the senate-house[60]:

  Jacob. Whewell. Such is the order in which we are fixed after a
  week's examination.... I had before been given to understand that a
  great deal depended upon being able to write the greatest possible
  quantity in the smallest time, but of the rapidity which was
  actually necessary I had formed the most distant idea. I am upon no
  occasion a quick writer, and upon subjects where I could not go on
  without sometimes thinking a little I soon found myself considerably
  behind. I was therefore surprised, and even astonished, to find
  myself bracketed off, as it is called, in the second place; that is,
  on the day when a new division of the classes is made for the
  purpose of having a closer examination of the respective merits of
  men who come pretty near to each other, I was not classed with
  anybody, but placed alone in the second bracket. The man who is at
  the head of the list is of Caius College, and was always expected to
  be very high, though I do not know that anybody expected to see him
  so decidedly superior as to be bracketed off by himself.

The tendency to cultivate mechanical rapidity was a grave evil, and
lasted long after Whewell's time. According to rumour the highest
honours in 1845 were obtained by assiduous practice in writing[61].

The devotion of the Cambridge school to geometrical and fluxional
methods had led to its isolation from contemporary continental
mathematicians. Early in the nineteenth century the evil consequence
of this began to be recognized; and it was felt to be little less than
a scandal that the researches of Lagrange, Laplace, and Legendre were
unknown to many Cambridge mathematicians save by repute. An attempt to
explain the notation and methods of the calculus as used on the
continent was made by Woodhouse, later professor in the University,
who stands out as the apostle of the new movement.

It is doubtful if Woodhouse could have brought analytical methods into
vogue by himself; but his views were enthusiastically adopted by three
students, Peacock, Babbage, and Herschel, who succeeded in carrying
out the reforms he had suggested. They created an Analytical Society
which Babbage explained was formed to advocate "the principles of pure
_d_-ism as opposed to the _dot_-age of the University." The character
of the instruction in mathematics at the University has at all times
largely depended on the text-books in use, and the importance of good
books of this class was emphasized by a traditional rule that
questions should not be set on a new subject in the tripos unless it
had been discussed in some treatise suitable and available for
Cambridge students[62]. Hence the importance attached to the
publication of the work on analytical trigonometry by Woodhouse in
1809, and of the works on the differential calculus issued by members
of the Analytical Society in 1816 and 1820.

In 1817 Peacock, who was moderator, introduced the symbols for
differentiation into the papers set in the senate-house examination;
his colleague, however, continued to use the fluxional notation.
Peacock himself wrote on 17 March 1817 (_i.e._ shortly after the
examination) on the subject as follows[63]:

  I assure you ... that I shall never cease to exert myself to the
  utmost in the cause of reform, and that I will never decline any
  office which may increase my power to effect it. I am nearly certain
  of being nominated to the office of Moderator in the year 1818-19,
  and as I am an examiner in virtue of my office, for the next year I
  shall pursue a course even more decided than hitherto, since I shall
  feel that men have been prepared for the change, and will then be
  enabled to have acquired a better system by the publication of
  improved elementary books. I have considerable influence as a
  lecturer, and I will not neglect it. It is by silent perseverance
  only that we can hope to reduce the many-headed monster of
  prejudice, and make the University answer her character as the
  loving mother of good learning and science.

In 1818 all candidates for honours, that is, all men in the first six
preliminary classes, were allowed to attempt the problems: this change
was made by the moderators.

In 1819 Peacock, who was again moderator, induced his colleague to
adopt the new notation. It was employed in the next year by Whewell,
and in the following year by Peacock again. Henceforth the calculus
in its modern language and analytical methods were freely used, new
subjects were introduced, and for many years the examination provided
a mathematical training fairly abreast of the times.

By this time the disputations had ceased to have any immediate effect
on a man's place in the tripos. Thus Whewell[64], writing about his
duties as moderator in 1820, said:

  You would get very exaggerated ideas of the importance attached to
  it [an Act] if you were to trust Cumberland; I believe it was
  formerly more thought of than it is now. It does not, at least
  immediately, produce any effect on a man's place in the tripos, and
  is therefore considerably less attended to than used to be the case,
  and in most years is not very interesting after the five or six best
  men: so that I look for a considerable exercise of, or rather demand
  for, patience on my part. The other part of my duty in the Senate
  House consists in manufacturing wranglers, senior optimes, etc. and
  is, while it lasts, very laborious.

Of the examination itself in this year he wrote as follows[65]:

  The examination in the Senate House begins to-morrow, and is rather
  close work while it lasts. We are employed from seven in the morning
  till five in the evening in giving out questions and receiving
  written answers to them; and when that is over, we have to read over
  all the papers which we have received in the course of the day, to
  determine who have done best, which is a business that in numerous
  years has often kept the examiners up the half of every night; but
  this year is not particularly numerous. In addition to all this, the
  examination is conducted in a building which happens to be a very
  beautiful one, with a marble floor and a highly ornamented ceiling;
  and as it is on the model of a Grecian temple, and as temples had no
  chimneys, and as a stove or a fire of any kind might disfigure the
  building, we are obliged to take the weather as it happens to be,
  and when it is cold we have the full benefit of it--which is likely
  to be the case this year. However, it is only a few days, and we
  have done with it.

A sketch of the examination in the previous year from the point of
view of an examinee was given by J.M.F. Wright[66], but there is
nothing of special interest in it.

Sir George B. Airy[67] gave the following sketch of his recollections
of the reading and studies of undergraduates of his time and of the
tripos of 1823, in which he had been senior wrangler:

  At length arrived the Monday morning on which the examination for
  the B.A. degree was to begin.... We were all marched in a body to
  the Senate-House and placed in the hands of the Moderators. How the
  "candidates for honours" were separated from the οἱ πολλοί I do not
  know, I presume that the Acts and the Opponencies had something to
  do with it. The honour candidates were divided into six groups: and
  of these Nos. 1 and 2 (united), Nos. 3 and 4 (united), and Nos. 5
  and 6 (united), received the questions of one Moderator. No. 1,
  Nos. 2 and 3 (united), Nos. 4 and 5 (united), and No. 6, received
  those of the other Moderator. The Moderators were reversed on
  alternate days. There were no printed question-papers: each examiner
  had his bound manuscript of questions, and he read out his first
  question; each of the examinees who thought himself able proceeded
  to write out his answer, and then orally called out "Done." The
  Moderator, as soon as he thought proper, proceeded with another
  question. I think there was only one course of questions on each day
  (terminating before 3 o'clock, for the Hall dinner). The examination
  continued to Friday mid-day. On Saturday morning, about 8 o'clock,
  the list of honours (manuscript) was nailed on the door of the
  Senate House.

It must be remembered that for students pursuing the normal course the
senate-house examination still provided the only avenue to a degree.
That examination involved a knowledge of the elements of moral
philosophy and theology, an acquaintance with the rules of formal
logic, and the power of reading and writing scholastic Latin, but
mathematics was the predominant subject, and this led to a certain
one-sidedness in education. The evil of this was generally recognized,
and in 1822 various reforms were introduced in the university
curriculum; in particular the Previous Examination was established for
students in their second year, the subjects being prescribed Greek and
Latin works, a Gospel, and Paley's _Evidences_. Set classical books
were introduced in the final examination of poll-men; and another
honour or tripos examination was established for classical students.
These alterations came into effect in 1824; and henceforth the
senate-house examination, so far as it related to mathematical
students, was known as the Mathematical Tripos.

In 1827 the scheme of examination in the mathematical tripos was
revised. By regulations[68] which came into operation in January 1828,
four days, exclusive of the day of arranging the brackets, were
devoted to the examination; the number of hours of examination was
twenty-three, of which seven were assigned to problems. On the first
two days all the candidates had the same questions proposed to them,
inclusive of the evening problems, and the examination on those days
excluded the higher and more difficult parts of mathematics, in order,
in the words of the report, "that the candidates for honours may not
be induced to pursue the more abstruse and profound mathematics, to
the neglect of more elementary knowledge." Accordingly, only such
questions as could be solved without the aid of the differential
calculus were set on the first day, and those set on the second day
involved only its elementary applications. The classes were reduced
to four, determined as before by the exercises in the schools.

The regulations of 1827 definitely prescribed that all the papers
should be printed. They are also noticeable as being the last which
gave the examiners power to ask _vivâ voce_ questions, though such
questions "were restricted to asking about propositions contained in
the mathematical works commonly in use at the University, or examples
and explanations of such propositions." It was further recommended
that no paper should contain more questions than well-prepared
students could be expected to answer within the time allowed for it,
but that if any candidate, before the end of the time, had answered
all the questions in the paper, the examiners might propose additional
questions _vivâ voce_. The power of granting honorary optime degrees
now ceased; it had already fallen into abeyance. Henceforth the
examination was conducted under definite rules, and I no longer
concern myself with its traditions.

In the same year as these changes became effective the examination for
the poll degree was separated from the tripos with different sets of
papers and a different schedule of subjects[69]. It was, however,
still nominally considered as forming part of the senate-house
examination, and until 1858 those who obtained a poll degree were
arranged in four classes, described as fourth, fifth, sixth, and
seventh, as if in continuation of the junior optimes or third class of
the tripos.

In the course henceforth ordained for the poll or ordinary degree, the
examination, later known as "the General," represents that part of the
old senate-house examination which was intended for the poll-men, but
gradually it was moved to an earlier period in the normal course taken
by the men. In 1851 admission to the classical tripos[70] was allowed
to others than those who passed the mathematical tripos, and this
provided another avenue to a degree entirely independent of the old
senate-house examination. In 1852 another set of examinations, at
first called "the Professor's Examinations," and now somewhat modified
and known as "the Specials," was instituted for all poll-men to take
before they could qualify for a degree.

In 1858 the fiction that the poll examinations were part of the
senate-house examination was abandoned, and subsequently they have
been treated as providing an independent method of obtaining the
degree: thus now the mathematical tripos is the sole representative of
the old senate-house examination. Since 1858 numerous other ways of
obtaining a degree in arts have been established, and it is now
possible to graduate by showing proficiency in very special, or even
technical subjects.

Further changes in the mathematical tripos were introduced in
1833[71]. The duration of the examination, before the issue of the
brackets, was extended to five days, and the number of hours of
examination on each day was fixed at five and a half: seven and a half
hours were assigned to problems. The examination on the first day was
confined to subjects that did not require the differential calculus,
and only the simplest applications of the calculus were permitted on
the second and third days. During the first four days of the
examination the same papers were set to all the candidates alike, but
on the fifth day the examination was conducted according to classes.
No reference was made to _vivâ voce_ questions, though permission was
reserved to re-examine candidates if it were found necessary: this
right remained in force till 1848, but in fact was never used. In
December 1834, a few unimportant details were amended.

Mr Earnshaw, the senior moderator in 1836, informed me that he
believed that the tripos of that year was the earliest one in which
all the papers were marked, and that in previous years the examiners
had partly relied on their impression of the answers given.

New regulations came into force[72] in 1839. The examination now
lasted for six days, and continued as before for five hours and a half
each day: eight and a half hours were assigned to problems. Throughout
the whole examination the same papers were set to all candidates, and
no reference was made to any preliminary classes. It was no doubt in
accordance with the spirit of these changes that the acts in the
schools should be abolished, but they were discontinued by the
moderators of 1839 without the authority of the senate. The
examination was for the future confined[73] to mathematics.

In the same year in which the new scheme came into force a proposal to
reopen the subject was rejected on 6 March 1839.

The difficulty of bringing professorial lectures into relation with
the needs of students has more than once been before the University.
The desirability of it was emphasized by a syndicate in February 1843,
which recommended conferences at stated intervals between the
mathematical professors and examiners. This report, which
foreshadowed the creation of a Mathematical Board, was rejected by the
senate on 31 March.

A few years later the scheme of the examination was again
reconstructed by regulations[74] which came into effect in 1848. The
duration of the examination was extended to eight days. The
examination lasted in all forty-four and a half hours, twelve of which
were devoted to problems. The first three days were assigned to
specified elementary subjects; in the papers set on these days riders
were to be set as well as bookwork, but the methods of analytical
geometry and the calculus were excluded. After the first three days
there was a short interval, at the end of which the examiners issued a
list of those who had so acquitted themselves as to deserve
mathematical honours. Only those whose names were contained in this
list were admitted to the last five days of the examination, which was
devoted to the higher parts of mathematics. After the conclusion of
the examination the examiners, taking into account the whole eight
days, brought out the list arranged in order of merit. No provision
was made for any rearrangement of this list corresponding to the
examination of the brackets. The arrangements of 1848 remained in
force till 1873.

In the same year as these regulations came into force, a Board of
Mathematical Studies (consisting of the mathematical professors,
with the moderators and examiners for the current year and the two
preceding years) was constituted[75] by the senate. From that time
forward their minutes supply a permanent record of the changes
gradually introduced into the tripos. I do not allude to subsequent
changes which only concern unimportant details of the examination.

In May 1849, the board issued a report in which, after giving a review
of the past and existing state of the mathematical studies in the
University, they recommended that the mathematical theories of
electricity, magnetism, and heat should not be admitted as subjects of
examination. In the following year they issued a second report, in
which they recommended the omission of elliptic integrals, Laplace's
coefficients, capillary attraction, and the figure of the earth
considered as heterogeneous, as well as a definite limitation of
the questions in the lunar and planetary theories. In making these
recommendations the board were only recognizing what had become the
practice in the examination.

I may, in passing, mention a curious attempt which was made in 1853
and 1854 to assist candidates to estimate the relative difficulty of
the questions asked. This was effected by giving to the candidates,
at the same time as the examination paper, a slip of paper on which
the marks assigned for the bookwork and rider for each question were
printed. I mention the fact merely because these things are rapidly
forgotten and not because it is of any intrinsic value. I possess a
complete set of slips which came to me from Todhunter.

In 1856 there was an amusing difference of opinion between the
vice-chancellor and the moderators. The vice-chancellor issued a
notice to say that for the convenience of the University he had
directed the tripos lists to be published at 8.0 a.m. as well as at
9.0 a.m., but when members of the senate arrived at 8.0 the moderators
said that the list should not be read until 9.0.

Considerable changes in the scheme of examination were introduced in
1873. On 5 December 1865, the board had recommended the addition of
Laplace's coefficients and the figure of the earth considered as
heterogeneous as subjects of the examination; the report does not seem
to have been brought before the senate, but attention was called to
the fact that certain departments of mathematics and mathematical
physics found no place in the tripos schedules, and were neglected by
most students. Accordingly, a syndicate was appointed on 6 June 1867,
to consider the matter, and a scheme drawn up by them was approved in
1868[76] and came into effect in 1873.

The new scheme of examination was framed on the same lines as that of
1848. The subjects in the first three days were left unchanged, but an
extra day was added, devoted to the elements of mathematical physics.
The essence of the modification was the greatly extended range of
subjects introduced into the schedule of subjects for the last five
days, and their arrangement in divisions; the total marks awarded to
the questions in each of the five divisions being approximately in a
proportion to the total marks assigned to the questions in the first
three days as 2, 1, 1, 1, 2/3 to 1 respectively. Under these
regulations the number of examiners was increased from four to five.

The assignment of marks to groups of subjects was made under the
impression that the best candidates would concentrate their abilities
on a selection of subjects from the various divisions. But it was
found that, unless the questions were made extremely difficult, more
marks could be obtained by reading superficially all the subjects in
the five divisions than by attaining real proficiency in a few of the
higher ones: while the wide range of subjects rendered it practically
impossible to cover all the ground thoroughly in the time allowed.
The failure was so pronounced that in 1877 another syndicate was
appointed to consider the mathematical studies and examinations of the
University. They presented an elaborate scheme, but on 13 May 1878,
some of the most important parts of it were rejected; their subsequent
proposals, accepted on 21 November 1878 (by 62 to 49), represented a
compromise which pleased few members of the senate[77].

Under the new scheme which came into force in 1882 the tripos was
divided into two portions: the first portion was taken at the end of
the third year of residence, the range of subjects being practically
the same as in the regulations of 1848, and the result brought out in
the customary order of merit. The second portion was held in the
following January, and was open only to those who had been wranglers
in the preceding June. This portion was confined to higher mathematics
and appealed chiefly to specialists: the result was brought out in
three classes, each arranged in alphabetical order. The moderators and
examiners conducted the whole examination without any extraneous aid.

In the next year or two further amendments were made[78], the second
part of the examination being moved to the June of the fourth year,
and thrown open to all men who had graduated in the tripos of the
previous June. At the same time the conduct of the examination in
part II was transferred to four examiners nominated by the board: this
put it largely under the control of the professors. The range of
subjects of part II was also greatly extended, and candidates were
encouraged to select only a few of them. It was further arranged that
part I might be taken at the end of a man's second year of residence,
though in that case it would not qualify for a degree. A student who
availed himself of this leave could take part II at the end either of
his third or of his fourth year as he pleased.

The general effect of these changes was to destroy the homogeneity of
the tripos. Objections to the new scheme were soon raised. Especially,
it was said--whether rightly or wrongly--that part I contained too
many technical subjects to serve as a general educational training for
any save mathematicians; that the distinction of a high place in the
historic list produced on its results tended to prevent the best men
taking it in their second year, though by this time they had read
enough to be able to do so; and that part II was so constructed as to
appeal only to professional mathematicians, and thus the higher
branches of mathematics were neglected in the University by all save
a few specialists.

Whatever value be attached to these opinions, the number of students
studying mathematics fell rapidly under the scheme of 1886. In 1899
the board proposed[79] further changes. These seemed to some members
of the senate to be likely still further to decrease the number of men
who took up the subject as one of general education; and the two main
proposals were rejected, 15 February 1900 by votes of 151 to 130 and
161 to 129.

A few years later, in 1907[80], the board brought forward another
scheme, proposing changes so sweeping as almost to destroy the
identity of the tripos. Under this the examination in part II was
abolished--a change on which all parties were agreed. There was
introduced an examination, called part I, confined to elementary
mathematics, which could be taken as early as the second term of
residence, and for which in certain cases of failure a student could
present himself again, but this, although an examination for honours,
did not qualify for a degree. In the new part II, taken normally at
the end of the third year of residence and qualifying for a degree,
candidates were given some option in the subjects of their
examination, and order of merit was abolished. The first examination
under this scheme was held in 1908.

A remarkable feature in the history of the Cambridge mathematical
school is the fact that for nearly two hundred years most students
were accustomed to rely for preparation for it on work done with a
private tutor or "Coach." Towards the close of the seventeenth century
we first read of these "pupil-mongers" (among whom Laughton of Clare
was the most famous) who made it their business to prepare men for
their "acts."

With the rise of the senate-house examination the importance of this
class of teachers increased, for success in that examination was
regarded as the crown of the academic course, and brought with it, in
the shape of a fellowship, an immediate competence with a reasonable
prospect of an assured career. It was the business of private tutors
to prepare their pupils for the examination, and among those who in
this way came to the front shortly after the middle of the eighteenth
century were Richard Watson, John Wilson whose name is still known by
its association with a proposition in the theory of numbers, and
Robert Thorp. The last named teacher was described, about 1761, as
being "of eminent use to young men in preparing them for the
Senate-House Examinations and peculiarly successful"; and it was added
that "one young man of no shining reputation with the assistance of
Mr Thorp's tuition had stood at the head of wranglers."

In a grace of the senate, passed in 1781, it is stated that almost all
sophs then resorted to private tuition, and for more than a century
subsequently, the practice was well established. These were the men
who really directed the reading of the students. Even non-residents,
if reputed to be successful coaches, drew pupils. Thus John Dawson, a
medical practitioner at Sedbergh, regularly prepared pupils in the
vacations for the senate-house examination, and at least eleven of the
senior wranglers between 1781 and 1800 are known to have studied under
him.

During the nineteenth century the system developed under two
remarkable teachers, William Hopkins, 1793-1866, and Edward John
Routh, 1831-1907, to whom the vast majority of the better known
Cambridge mathematicians of this century owed most of what they learnt
in their undergraduate days. Hopkins in the twenty-two years from
1828-49, had among his pupils one hundred and seventy-five wranglers,
of whom seventeen were senior, forty-four in one of the first three
places, and one hundred and eight in one of the first ten places.
So too Routh, in the thirty-one years from 1858-88, had between six
hundred and seven hundred pupils, most of whom became wranglers,
twenty-seven being senior in the tripos and forty-one Smith's
prizemen. To organize teaching on this scale demanded rare gifts.

Perhaps it may be of interest to describe, by way of example, the
general features of Routh's system. He gave catechetical lectures
three times a week to classes of eight or ten men of approximately
equal knowledge and ability. The work to be done between two lectures
was heavy, and included the solution of some eight or nine fairly hard
examples on the subject of the lectures. Examination papers were also
constantly set on tripos lines (bookwork and riders), while there was
a weekly paper of problems set to all pupils alike. All papers sent up
were marked in public, the comments on them in class were generally
brief, and, to save time, solutions of the questions were circulated
in manuscript. Teaching also was supplemented by manuscripts on the
subjects. Finally to the more able students he was accustomed, shortly
before their tripos, to give memoirs or books for analyses and
commentaries. The course for the first three years and the two earlier
long vacations covered all the subjects of the examination--the last
long vacation and the first term of the fourth year were devoted to a
thorough revision.

Under Hopkins and Routh there was no trace of what is called cramming;
they might say that a particular demonstration was so long that it
could not be required in the tripos, but none the less they expected
their pupils to master it. The system had faults, but it had the merit
of providing a systematic grounding in a wide field of subjects. The
effectiveness of teaching of this kind was dependent on intimate
constant personal intercourse, and the importance of this cannot be
overrated. The scandal of the system consisted in the fact that a man
was compelled to pay heavy fees to the University and his College for
instruction, and yet found it advantageous at his own expense to go
elsewhere to get it.

During the last quarter of the nineteenth century college lecturers
began to share with the coaches the general direction of studies.
Post-graduate work was also to some extent brought under the influence
of professors and university lecturers--these not uncommonly
suggesting subjects for dissertations for fellowships, Smith's prizes,
etc. But the students thus influenced were not numerous, and it still
remains true that the majority of mathematical undergraduates are so
out of touch with the professors in the subject as to be unacquainted
even with their personal appearance.

Such was the mathematical tripos and its history. Whatever its
demerits, it dominated the situation, and Cambridge mathematics and
mathematicians of the nineteenth century were the direct product of
the system it embodied. Judged by the output, I do not think it can
be said to have resulted in failure; and perhaps Cayley, Sylvester,
Adams, Green, Stokes, Kelvin, and Maxwell--to mention no others--were
none the worse for having been compelled to go through the course.

The reconstitution in 1907 of the tripos, and the destruction of many
of its distinctive features must profoundly modify the future history
of mathematics at Cambridge, but forecasts on such a theme would be
useless.

The curious origin of the term tripos has been repeatedly told, and an
account of it may fitly close this chapter. Formerly there were three
principal occasions on which questionists were admitted to the title
or degree of bachelor. The first of these was at the comitia priora,
held on Ash-Wednesday, for the best men in the year. The next was at
the comitia posteriora, which was held a few weeks later, and at which
any student who had distinguished himself in the quadragesimal
exercises subsequent to Ash-Wednesday had his seniority reserved to
him. Lastly, there was the comitia minora, for students who had in no
special way distinguished themselves.

In the fifteenth century an important part in the ceremony on each of
these occasions was taken by a certain "ould bachilour," who sat upon
a three-legged stool or tripos before the proctors and tested the
abilities of the would-be graduates by arguing some question with the
"eldest son," who was selected from them as their representative. To
assist the latter in what might be an unequal contest his "father,"
that is, the officer of his college who was to present him for his
degree, was allowed to come to his assistance.

The discussion took place in Great St Mary's Church, and marked the
admission of the student to a position with new responsibilities,
while the season of Lent was chosen with a view to bring this into
prominence. The puritan party objected to the semi-ecclesiastical
character of the proceedings, and in the course of the sixteenth
century set themselves to bring the ceremony into disrepute. The part
played by the questionist now became purely formal, though a serious
debate still sometimes took place between the father of the senior
questionist and a regent master who represented the University: this,
however, came to be prefaced by a speech by the bachelor, who was now
called Mr Tripos, just as we speak of a judge as the bench, or of a
rower as an oar. Ultimately public opinion permitted Mr Tripos to say
pretty much what he pleased, so long as it was not dull and was
scandalous. The speeches he delivered or the verses he recited were
generally printed and preserved by the registrary, and were known as
the tripos verses: originally they referred to the subjects of the
disputations then propounded. The earliest copies now extant are those
for 1575.

The university officials, to whom the personal criticisms in which
Mr Tripos indulged were by no means pleasing, repeatedly exhorted him
to remember "while exercising his privilege of humour, to be modest
withal." In 1710, says Mullinger[81], "the authorities after
condemning the excessive license of the tripos announced that the
comitia at Lent would in future be conducted in the Senate-House; and
all members of the University, of whatever order or degree, were
forbidden to assail or mock the disputants with scurrilous jokes or
unseemly witticisms. About the year 1747-8, the moderators initiated
the practice of printing the honour lists on the back of the sheets
containing the tripos verses, and after the year 1755 this became the
invariable practice. By virtue of this purely arbitrary connection
these lists themselves became known as the tripos; and eventually the
examination itself, of which they represented the results, also became
known by the same designation."

Mr Tripos ceased to deliver his speech about 1750, but the issue of
tripos verses continued for nearly 150 years longer. During the latter
part of this time they consisted of four sets of verses, usually in
Latin, but occasionally in Greek, in which current topics in the
University were treated lightly or seriously as the writer thought
fit. They were written for the proctors and moderators by
undergraduates or commencing bachelors, each of whom was supposed to
receive a pair of white kid gloves in recognition of his labours. Thus
gradually the word tripos changed its meaning "from a thing of wood to
a man, from a man to a speech, from a speech to sets of verses, from
verses to a sheet of coarse foolscap paper, from a paper to a list of
names, and from a list of names to a system of examination[82]."

In 1895 the proctors and moderators, without consulting the senate,
sent in no verses, and thus, in spite of widespread regret, an
interesting custom of many centuries standing was destroyed. In
defence of this action, it was said that the custom had never been
embodied in statute or ordinance, and thus was not obligatory, and
further that its continuance was not of material benefit to anybody.
Such arguments are not conclusive, and we may well regret the
disappearance of historic ties unless it can be shown that they cause
inconvenience, which of course in this case could not be asserted.

By way of supplement to the foregoing account, I append a list of
those who have held or hold the various university mathematical chairs
and lectureships.

  The _Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics_ was founded in 1663 by
  Henry Lucas. The successive occupants of the chair have been: Isaac
  Barrow, 1664-1669; Isaac Newton, 1669-1702; William Whiston,
  1702-1711; Nicholas Saunderson (Sanderson), 1711-1739; John Colson,
  1739-1760; Edward Waring, 1760-1798; Isaac Milner, 1798-1820; Robert
  Woodhouse, 1820-1822; Thomas Turton, 1822-1826; George Biddell Airy,
  1826-1828; Charles Babbage, 1828-1839; Joshua King, 1839-1849;
  George Gabriel Stokes, 1849-1903; Joseph Larmor, 1903 _et seq._

  The _Plumian Professorship of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy_
  was founded in 1704 by Thomas Plume. The successive occupants of the
  chair have been: Roger Cotes, 1707-1716; Robert Smith, 1716-1760;
  Anthony Shepherd, 1760-1796; Samuel Vince, 1796-1822; Robert
  Woodhouse, 1822-1828; George Biddell Airy, 1828-1836; James Challis,
  1836-1883; George Howard Darwin, 1883-1912; Arthur Stanley
  Eddington, 1913 _et seq._

  The _Lowndean Professorship of Astronomy and Geometry_ was founded
  in 1749 by Thomas Lowndes. The successive occupants of the chair
  have been: Roger Long, 1750-1771; John Smith, 1771-1795; William
  Lax, 1795-1836; George Peacock, 1836-1858; John Couch Adams,
  1858-1892; Robert Stawell Ball, 1892-1913; Henry Frederick Baker,
  1914 _et seq._

  The _Sadleirian Professorship of Pure Mathematics_ was founded, in
  1863 from a benefaction given in 1710 by Lady Sadleir. The
  successive occupants of the chair have been: Arthur Cayley,
  1863-1895; Andrew Russell Forsyth, 1895-1910; Ernest William Hobson,
  1910 _et seq._

  The _Cavendish Professorship of Experimental Physics_ was founded in
  1871 by the University; the laboratory attached being built at the
  expense of the then Chancellor, the Duke of Devonshire. The
  successive occupants of the chair have been: James Clerk Maxwell,
  1871-1879; John William, Baron Rayleigh, 1879-1884; Joseph John
  Thomson, 1884 _et seq._

  The _Professorship of Mechanism and Applied Mechanics_, with
  laboratories and shops attached, was founded by the University in
  1875. The successive occupants of the chair have been: James Stuart,
  1875-1890; James Alfred Ewing, 1890-1903; Bertram Hopkinson, 1903
  _et seq._

  Five _Lectureships in Mathematics_ were created in 1882 under the
  directions of Royal Commissioners, and subsequently two others (now
  reduced to one other) tenable, if desired, with one of the above,
  were founded. The successive holders have been: Joseph John Thomson,
  1884; Andrew Russell Forsyth, 1884-1895; William Herrick Macaulay,
  1884-1887; Richard Tetley Glazebrook, 1884-1898; Ernest William
  Hobson, 1884-1910; Joseph Larmor, 1885-1903; Richard Pendlebury,
  1888-1901; Henry Frederick Baker, 1895-1914; Augustus Edward Hough
  Love, 1898-1899; Hector Munro Macdonald, 1899-1904; Herbert William
  Richmond, 1901 _et seq._; George Ballard Mathews, 1903-1905; James
  Hopwood Jeans, 1904-1906, 1910-1912; John Gaston Leathem, 1905-1909;
  Robert Alfred Herman, 1906 _et seq._; Edmund Taylor Whittaker,
  1905-1906; Thomas James I'Anson Bromwich, 1909 _et seq._; John
  Hilton Grace, 1901 _et seq._; Godfrey Harold Hardy, 1914 _et seq._;
  Arthur Berry, 1914 _et seq._


[Footnote 34: The greater part of this chapter formerly appeared in my
_Mathematical Recreations and Essays_, but a few paragraphs on
"coaching" have been taken from a paper which I wrote for distribution
to those who attended the International Congress of Mathematicians
held in England in 1912. The subject is treated in Whewell's _Liberal
Education_, Cambridge, three parts, 1845, 1850, 1853; Wordsworth's
_Scholae Academicae_, Cambridge, 1877; my own _Origin and History of
the Mathematical Tripos_, Cambridge, 1880; Glaisher's Presidential
Address to the London Mathematical Society, _Transactions_,
vol. XVIII, 1886, pp. 4-38; and my _History of the Study of
Mathematics at Cambridge_, Cambridge, 1889.]

[Footnote 35: _Budget of Paradoxes_, by A. De Morgan, London, 1872,
p. 305.]

[Footnote 36: See grace of 25 October 1680.]

[Footnote 37: _Ex. gr._ see De la Pryme's account of his graduation in
1694, _Surtees Society_, vol. LIV, 1870, p. 32.]

[Footnote 38: W. Reneu, in his letters of 1708-10 describing the
course for the B.A. degree, makes no mention of the senate-house
examination, and I think it is a reasonable inference that it had not
then been established.]

[Footnote 39: _Memoirs of Richard Cumberland_, London, 1806,
pp. 78-79.]

[Footnote 40: Quoted by C. Wordsworth, _Scholae Academicae_,
Cambridge, 1877, pp. 30-31.]

[Footnote 41: _Anecdotes of the Life of Richard Watson_, London, 1817,
pp. 18-19.]

[Footnote 42: See grace of 25 October 1883; and the _Cambridge
University Reporter_, 23 October 1883.]

[Footnote 43: See grace of 11 February 1909, and the _Cambridge
University Reporter_, 8 December 1908.]

[Footnote 44: _The Works of J. Jebb_, London, 1787, vol. II,
pp. 290-297.]

[Footnote 45: "Emulation, which is the principle upon which the plan
is constructed." _The Works of J. Jebb_, London, 1787, vol. III,
p. 261.]

[Footnote 46: _The Works of J. Jebb_, London, 1787, vol. III, p. 272.]

[Footnote 47: See graces of 5 July 1773, and of 17 February 1774.]

[Footnote 48: See graces of 19, 20 March 1779.]

[Footnote 49: Notice issued by the vice-chancellor, dated 19 May
1779.]

[Footnote 50: The _Challis Manuscripts_, III, 61. There are two copies
almost identical, one dated 1785, the other 1786. Probably the paper
printed in the text was set in 1786.]

[Footnote 51: H. Gunning, _Reminiscences_, second edition, London,
1855, vol. I, p. 82.]

[Footnote 52: C. Wordsworth, _Scholae Academicae_, Cambridge, 1877,
pp. 322-323.]

[Footnote 53: H. Gunning, _Reminiscences_, second edition, London,
1855, vol. I, p. 182.]

[Footnote 54: See grace of 8 April 1791.]

[Footnote 55: Communicated by the moderators to fathers of colleges on
18 January 1799, and agreed to by the latter.]

[Footnote 56: C. Wordsworth, _Scholae Academicae_, Cambridge, 1817,
p. 123.]

[Footnote 57: _Anecdotes of the Life of Richard Watson_, London, 1817,
p. 19.]

[Footnote 58: _Memoir of A. De Morgan_, London, 1882, pp. 387-392.]

[Footnote 59: See graces, 15 December 1808.]

[Footnote 60: S. Douglas, _Life of W. Whewell_, London, 1881, p. 20.]

[Footnote 61: For a contemporary account of this, see C.A. Bristed,
_Five Years in an English University_, New York, 1852, pp. 233-239.]

[Footnote 62: See _ex. gr._ the grace of 14 November 1827, referred to
below.]

[Footnote 63: _Proceedings of the Royal Society_, London, 1859,
vol. IX, pp. 538-539.]

[Footnote 64: _Whewell's Writings and Correspondence_, ed. Todhunter,
London, 1876, vol. II, p. 36.]

[Footnote 65: S. Douglas, _Life of Whewell_, London, 1881, p. 56.]

[Footnote 66: _Alma Mater_, London, 1827, vol. II, pp. 58-98.]

[Footnote 67: See _Nature_, vol. XXXV, 24 February 1887, pp. 397-399.
See also his _Autobiography_, Cambridge, 1896, chapter ii.]

[Footnote 68: See grace, 14 November 1827.]

[Footnote 69: See grace, 21 May 1828, confirming a report of 27 March
1828.]

[Footnote 70: See grace of 31 October 1849.]

[Footnote 71: See grace of 6 April 1832.]

[Footnote 72: See grace of 30 May 1838.]

[Footnote 73: Under a badly-worded grace passed on 11 May 1842, on the
recommendation of a syndicate on theological studies, candidates for
mathematical honours were, after 1846, required to attend the poll
examination on Paley's _Moral Philosophy_, the new testament and
ecclesiastical history. This had not been the intention of the senate,
and on 14 March 1855, a grace was passed making this clear.]

[Footnote 74: See grace of 13 May 1846, confirming a report of
23 March 1846.]

[Footnote 75: See grace of 31 October 1848.]

[Footnote 76: See grace of 2 June 1868. It was carried by a majority
of only five in a house of 75.]

[Footnote 77: See graces of 17 May 1877; 29 May 1878; and 21 November
1878; and the _Cambridge University Reporter_, 2 April, 14 May,
4 June, 29 October, 12 November, and 26 November 1878.]

[Footnote 78: See graces of 13 December 1883; 12 June 1884;
10 February 1885; 29 October 1885; and 1 June 1886.]

[Footnote 79: See reports dated 7 November 1899, and 20 January 1900.]

[Footnote 80: See the reports of the special board, _Cambridge
University Reporter_, 29 May and 20 November 1906, and the graces of
2 February 1907. The voting on the first grace was 776 placet and 644
non-placet.]

[Footnote 81: J.B. Mullinger, _The University of Cambridge_,
Cambridge, vol. I, 1873, pp. 175-176.]

[Footnote 82: C. Wordsworth, _Scholae Academicae_, Cambridge, 1877,
p. 21.]




INDEX

  Abbot, Wm, 263.
  Acts, Scholastic, ch XV.
  Adams, J.C, 311, 315.
  Admonitions, Statutory, 221-4.
  Airy, G.B, 173, 293, 315.
  Alford, Hen, 174.
  Allen, Thos, 34.
  All Saints' Ch, Camb, 85.
  Alston Tankard, The, 123.
  Ambler, John, 224.
  Amos, Andrew, 130, 140.
  Analytical Society, 290.
  Anne of Denmark, 117.
  Ansill, Thos, 13.
  Apprenticeship, 187, 189.
  Arrington Vicarage, 11.
  Artistic Treasures, ch VI.
  Arts, Students in, 187, 188.
  Ascham, Roger, 203.
  Assessors, Trin. Coll, 127.
  Assistant Tutors, 44.
  Athletic Club, Trinity, 125, 126.
  Athletic Clubs, 174.
  Atterbury, Fras, 68.
  Attractions, Theory, 229, 234, 235.
  Auditors, Trin. Coll, ch VII.
  Aykerod Cup, The, 120.

  Babbage, Chas, 290, 315.
  Babington, Gervase, 57.
  Backhouse, Jas, 42.
  Bacon, Arth, 165.
  Bacon, Fras, 108, 117, 165.
  Baker, H.F, 315, 316.
  Balfour, A.J, 112.
  Ball, R.S, 315.
  Balsham, Hugh de, 191.
  Bancroft, Rich, 61, 62.
  Bankes Ewer, The, 121.
  Barnes, E.W, 43.
  Barnes, J.W, 81.
  Barrington Vicarage, 12.
  Barrow, Isaac, 108, 109, 117, 150, 170, 171, 254, 315.
  Beaumont, Robt, 92, 93, 94, 106.
  Bedesmen, 18.
  Bedwell, Thos, 254.
  Bellot Tankard, The, 123.
  Bennet, Bishop, 57.
  Bennet Ewer, The, 121.
  Bensley, Jas, 224.
  Benson, E.W, 110, 111.
  Bentley, Rich, 41, 67, 68, 98, 111, 134, 135, 172, 239.
  Benton, Dan, 212.
  Berry, Art, 316.
  Best, H.D, 279.
  Bill, Wm, 49, 88, 91, 92.
  Billingsley, Hen, 254.
  Birching, 199-208, 210-214.
  Blackburn, Jas, 278.
  Blakesley, J.W, 81.
  Bland, Tobias, 214.
  Blundeville, Thos, 254.
  Board, Mathematical, 300, 301.
  Boat Club, The, 124, 125, 174.
  Bolland, Wm, 285.
  Bonnycastle's _Algebra_, 281, 284.
  Bottisham Vicarage, 11.
  Boude, Wm, 15, 16.
  Boxworth Rectory, 12.
  Boyle Cup, The, 122.
  Boys, Wm, 88.
  Brackets, System of, 271-272, 282-288, 295, 300.
  Brass, John, 255.
  Bridges, Simon, 17.
  Briggs, Hen, 254.
  Briggs, Simon, 17.
  Bristed, C.A, 174, 289.
  Bromwich, T.J.I'A, 316.
  Brooke, Rich, 128, 129, 131, 132.
  Brown, John, 81, 286.
  Browne, Galen, 223.
  Browne, I. Hawkins, 110, 111.
  Buckingham Ewer, The, 120.
  Buckley, Wm, 254.
  Bulaeus, 182.
  Burcham, T.B, 81.
  Burials in College, 103.
  Burnand, F.C, 174.
  Burnell, Edw, 128, 129, 130.
  Busby Cup, The, 121.
  Busby, Rich, 202.
  Butler, H.M, 115, 175.
  Butler, Miss, 100.
  Butler's _Analogy_, 219, 268.
  Byron, Lord, 109, 117.

  Calculus, The, 289-292.
  Cambridge University, Beginnings of, ch XI.
  Camden, Marquess of, 112.
  Caroline, Queen, 138.
  Cartwright, Thos, 93, 165.
  Carus, Wm, 73, 74, 79, 81.
  Carver, Chas, 277.
  Cavendish Cup, The, 123.
  Cavendish Professorship, 316.
  Cayley, Art, 110, 111, 176, 311, 315.
  Cecil, Sir Wm, 51.
  Censer Boat, 87, 118.
  Central Forces, ch XIII.
  Challenge Plate, 124-126.
  Challis, Jas, 315.
  Challis MSS, 273.
  Chantrey, Fras, 116.
  Chapel Attendance, ch IV, 102.
  Chapel, Compulsory, ch IV, 204, 206, 207.
  Chapel, Trinity, ch V.
  Charles I, 96, 168.
  Charles II, 96, 107, 117.
  Charrington, John, 115.
  Cheadle Rectory, 12.
  Cheke, John, 4, 5, 17, 191.
  Chesterton Vicarage, 11.
  Christ Church Westminsters, ch III.
  Christopherson, John, 88, 91, 92.
  Cipriani, G.B, 116.
  Clairaut, A.C, 240.
  Clarence, Duke of, 174.
  Clark, J.W, 130, 143.
  Clarke, Sam, 254.
  Clarke's _Attributes_, 268.
  Clarkson Cup, The, 120.
  Classical Tripos, 295, 297.
  Clerke, Gilbert, 254.
  Coaches, Private, 307-310.
  Coke, Edw, 111, 165.
  Colleges, Early, 27, 191, 192.
  Colson, John, 315.
  Combination Rooms, 167.
  Commencement-House, 153.
  Commons, Out of, 216, 217, 219.
  Confessions, 219, 221.
  Conybeare, W.J, 76.
  Conyers, Tobias, 212.
  Corporal Punishments, 199-208, 210-215.
  Cotes, Roger, 98, 172, 254, 267, 315.
  Cotton, G.E.L, 76.
  Cowley, Abraham, 66, 111, 169.
  Cox, Rich, 202.
  Craig, John, 254.
  Cranworth, Lord, 173.
  Creighton, Robt, 39.
  Croyland Abbey, 91, 181.
  Cumberland, Rich, 262.

  Dacres, Art, 254.
  Damer Cup, The, 123.
  Dance, Nath, 112.
  Darwin, G.H, 315.
  Dawson, John, 308.
  Days, Loss of, 217.
  Dealtry, Wm, 285, 286, 287.
  Deans, College, 28, 206-8, 219-20.
  De Aston, John, 155, 156, 160.
  De Bagshot, John, 155, 156.
  De Balsham, Hugh, 191.
  De Berwick, Rich, 155.
  De Beverley, Robt, 155, 160.
  Declaratio Computi, 128.
  De Croyland, Robt, 84, 85.
  De Durnford, Nich, 155.
  Dee, John, 254.
  De Gretford, Hen, 155.
  De Gretford, Ralph, 155.
  De Hull, John, 155.
  De Immeworth, John, 155.
  De Kelsey, John, 155.
  De Kingston, Edw, 155, 160.
  De la Pryme, Abraham, 259.
  De London, Phil, 155.
  De Morgan, Aug, 256, 284, 286.
  Denman, Geo, 130, 141.
  De Nottingham, Walter, 155.
  Derby, Henry Earl of, 110, 111.
  De Rome, Nich, 155.
  De Salisbury, John, 155.
  De Salisbury, Rich, 155.
  Descartes, René, 227, 236, 237.
  De Stanton, Hervey, 87.
  De Sutton, Hugh, 155.
  De Torterold, Jas, 155.
  De Torterold, John, 155.
  Devereux, Robt, 108, 165.
  Devonshire, Duke of, 316.
  D'Ewes, Simon, 208.
  De Winchester, David, 155, 160.
  De Windsor, Thos, 155.
  De Woodstock, John, 155.
  Dialectici, 16.
  Digges, Thos, 254.
  Discipline, ch XII, 27, 32, 33.
  Discommonsing, 216, 217, 219.
  Dissizaring, 216, 217.
  Distribucio Collegii, 13-22.
  Dobson, Wm, 81.
  Donaldson, J.W, 81.
  Douglas, Stair, 288, 292.
  Downing, Sir Geo, 131.
  Draghswerd, Wm, 155.
  Dryden, John, 111, 169, 219.
  Duport, Jas, 40, 169.
  Duport Salt, The, 121, 122.

  Early University History, ch XI.
  Earnshaw, Sam, 298.
  Eddington, A.S, 315.
  Edward II, 84, 154.
  Edward III, 84, 115, 117, 163.
  Edward IV, 110.
  Edward VI, 87, 115, 164.
  Edward VII, 174.
  Elizabeth of York, 106, 115.
  Elizabeth, Queen, 48, 49, 90, 91, 92, 114, 115, 117, 144, 164,
    167, 168.
  Ellethorpe, 213.
  Ellis, Wm, 129, 130, 133.
  Emerson, Wm, 268.
  Euclid's _Elements_, 271, 279, 281.
  Euler, Leonhard, 240.
  Essex, Earl of, 108, 165.
  Everett, Wm, 174.
  Ewing, J.A, 316.
  Eworth, Hans, 106, 115.
  Expulsions, 221-224.

  Fairfax, Sir Thos, 97.
  Fakenham Rectory, 11.
  Farish, Wm, 285.
  Fees, College, in 1570, 36-37.
  Fellow-Commoners, 29, 34, 119.
  Fellows, Election of, 30.
  Fellowship Election in 1659, 39.
  Felmersham Vicarage, 11.
  Fenn, John, 263.
  Ferguson, Jas, 267.
  Field, Fred, 81.
  Fines, 215-216.
  Fiott (Lee), John, 285, 287.
  Firebrace Cup, The, 122.
  First Trinity Boat Club, 124, 125, 174.
  Fitzgerald, Edw, 173.
  Fitzgerald Tankard, The, 122.
  Flamsteed, John, 230, 254.
  Fletcher, Bishop, 57.
  Fletcher, W.M, 43.
  Flogging, 199-208, 210-214.
  Fluxions, 289-292.
  Foley Tankard, The, 123.
  Forsyth, A.R, 315, 316.
  Fort, John, 155.
  Foster, Michael, 110, 111.
  Foster, Sam, 254.
  Foundation of Trinity, ch I.
  Franciscan Monastery, 19, 184.
  Frazer, Sir Jas, 170.
  Frere, John, 265.
  Fuller, Thos, 93.

  Galileo, 231, 232, 239.
  Galton, Fras, 110, 111, 174.
  Gating, 218-219.
  General Examination, 297.
  George I, 259.
  George III, 107.
  Gerrard, Mark, 115.
  Glaisher, J.W.L, 252.
  Glazebrook, R.T, 316.
  Glomerels, 181, 189-191.
  Gloucester, Duke of, 107, 112, 115.
  Goad, Roger, 204.
  Gooch, Wm, 276.
  Goodman, Gabriel, 52.
  Gordon, Douglas, 107.
  Gouldesborough, Edw, 57.
  Grace, J.H, 316.
  Graham, Robt, 129, 136.
  Grammar, Degrees in, 190, 191.
  Grammarians, 15, 16, 17, 28, 181, 189-191.
  Grammar School at Trinity, 15-17, 28, 30.
  Grammatici, 15, 16, 17, 28.
  Granby, Marquess of, 112, 113.
  Gravitation, Law of, ch XIII.
  Gray, 88.
  Greaves Cup, The, 123.
  Greaves, Wm, 129, 135, 136.
  Greek Authors read in 1570, 37.
  Green, Geo, 311.
  Grendon Vicarage, 11.
  Griffith, T, 133.
  Griffon, John, 155.
  Griffon, Thos, 155.
  Grigson, Thos, 215.
  Grote, John, 174.
  Grundisburgh Rectory, 12.
  Guilds, University, 188.
  Gulphing, 264.
  Gunning, Hen, 275, 278.

  Hacket, John, 61.
  Halfhead, 223.
  Halifax, Earl of, 110.
  Hallam, A.H, 173.
  Halley, Edmund, 228, 230.
  Hamilton, Hugh, 267.
  Hardy, G.H, 316.
  Hare, J.C, 173.
  Harman, Rich, 15.
  Harvey, John, 254.
  Harwood, Busick, 285.
  Heath, J.M, 81.
  Helsham, Rich, 267.
  Henry I, 180.
  Henry II, 180.
  Henry VII, 106, 115.
  Henry VIII, 3, 48, 106, 162, 167.
  Herbert, Geo, 61, 169.
  Herkomer, H. von, 109.
  Herman, R.A, 316.
  Herschel, John, 290.
  Herschel, Wm, 240.
  Hill, Thos, 254.
  Hitch, Robt, 223.
  Hobson, E.W, 315, 316.
  Hodges, 213.
  Hodson, Wm, 273.
  Holbein, 106.
  Hon. Optimes, 257, 261, 296.
  Hood, Thos, 254.
  Hooke, Robt, 228.
  Hopkins, Wm, 308-310.
  Hopkinson, B, 316.
  Hornbuckle, T.W, 286, 287, 288.
  Horrox, Jeremiah, 254.
  Hort, F.J.A, 110, 111, 176.
  Hostels, Private, 27, 29, 192, 193, 195, 198, 199.
  Houghton, Lord, 173.
  Howson, J.S, 76.
  Huddling, 255, 258.
  Hughes, Fras, 129, 132.
  Humphrey Ewer, The, 120.
  Husbands Cup, The, 122.
  Hustler, J.D, 285.
  Hutton, Archbishop, 57.
  Huygens, Christian, 238.
  Hydrodynamics, Theory of, 230, 235, 236.

  Impositions, 219-221.
  Ireland, Rich, 59.

  Jacob, Edw, 287, 288, 289.
  James I, 54, 64, 66, 114, 117, 168.
  James II, 171.
  Jeans, J.H, 316.
  Jebb, John, 263, 267, 270, 271.
  Jebb, R.C, 110, 111, 170, 176.
  Jephson, Thos, 285.
  Joachim, Joseph, 110.
  John, King, 180.
  Johnson, 212.
  Jones, Thos, 110.
  Jurin, Jas, 254.

  Kant, Immanuel, 242.
  Keate, John, 202.
  Keill, John, 267.
  Kelvin, Lord, 311.
  Kempthorne, John, 285.
  Kent Ewer, The, 120.
  Kepler's Problem, 234.
  King, C.W, 75.
  King, Joshua, 315.
  King, John, 59.
  Kinglake, A.W, 173.
  King's Hall, 3, 9-11, 20, 84-86, 144, 154-160, 162, 163.
  King's Scholars, _see_ King's Hall.
  Kneller, Godfrey, 112.
  Knight, Sam, 130, 137.

  Lagrange, J.L, 239, 240, 290.
  Laplace, P.S, 241, 242, 290.
  Larmor, Joseph, 315, 316.
  Laszlö de Lombros, P.A, 112.
  Latin Authors read in 1570, 37.
  Laud, Wm, 94.
  Laughton, Rich, 254, 307.
  Laurence, R.V, 43.
  Lawrence, Thos, 112.
  Lax, Wm, 276, 315.
  Least Resistance, Solid of, 236.
  Leathem, J.G, 316.
  Lecture-Rooms, College, 44, 45.
  Lectures, College, 44-46.
  Lectureships, Mathematical, 253, 316.
  Lee (Fiott), John, 287.
  Leg, Thos, 93.
  Legendre, A.M, 290.
  Lever, Thos, 24.
  Library, Trinity, ch VIII, 104.
  Lightfoot, J.B, 101, 110, 111, 115, 170, 176.
  L'Isle, Denys, 129, 134, 135.
  Locke's _Essay_, 268, 275, 279.
  Lombard, Peter, 181.
  Long, Roger, 267, 315.
  Lonsdale, John, 112.
  Loss of Days or Terms, 218.
  Love, A.E.H, 316.
  Lowndes, Thos, 315.
  Lowndean Professorship, 315.
  Lucas, Hen, 315.
  Lucas, Rich, 277.
  Lucasian Professorship, 315.
  Lushington, E.L, 174.
  Lyndhurst Cup, The, 123.
  Lyndhurst, Lord, 173.
  Lyons, Israel, 268.

  Macaulay, T.B, 117, 173.
  Macaulay, W.H, 316.
  Macclesfield, Earl of, 111.
  Macdonald, H.M, 316.
  Maclaurin, Colin, 267, 268.
  Man, Henry, 17.
  Mansel, W.L, 112, 217.
  Martin, Fras, 81.
  Martin, Theodore, 123.
  Marvell, Andrew, 169.
  Mary, Queen, 48, 88, 91, 108, 115, 164, 167.
  Mary of Scotland, 115.
  Mathematical Board, 300, 301.
  Mathematical Tripos, ch XV.
  Mathematics, Cambridge, ch XV.
  Mathews, G.B, 316.
  Maule, W.H, 173.
  Maurice, F.D, 110, 111.
  Maxwell, J. Clerk, 110, 111, 176, 311, 316.
  Maydew, John, 17.
  Mechanics, Theory of, 231-232.
  Mechanism Professorship, 316.
  Medieval Tutorial System, 27.
  Medieval University, Beginnings of, ch XI.
  Melbourne, Viscount, 110, 111.
  Merit, Order of, in Examinations, 261, 307.
  Mexborough Cup, The, 123.
  Mey, Wm, 5.
  Michael-House, 3, 11-13, 20, 86, 87, 162, 163.
  Milner, Isaac, 272, 315.
  Milnes, Monckton, 173.
  Milton, John, 213.
  Moderators, Mathematical, 258, 259, 260.
  Monasteries at Cambridge, 180, 181, 184, 185.
  Monks at University, 181, 185, 186, 187, 196.
  Moreton, Albert, 53.
  Morland, Sam, 254.
  Moro, Antonio, 106, 108.
  Motion, Laws of, 232.
  Mullinger, J.B, 179, 188, 313.
  Munro, H.A.J, 176.
  Murray, Thos, 112.

  Nebular Hypothesis, 241, 242.
  Neile, Rich, 59.
  Nevile Cup, The, 119.
  Nevile, Robt, 212.
  Nevile, Thos, 53, 55, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 114, 149, 166, 167, 168.
  Nevile's Court, 151, 152.
  Newton, Isaac, 108, 112, 116, 170, 244-251, 267, 268, 281, 284,
    287, 315.
  Newton, John, 134.
  Newton, Sam, 129, 132, 133, 134.
  Newton's _Principia_, ch XIII.
  Non-Regents, 183.
  Northampton, Earl of, 62.
  Numbers of Students, 41-44, 188.

  Offley, Chris, 223.
  Opie, John, 112.
  Opponencies, 253.
  Optimes, ch XV.
  Optimes, Honorary, 257, 261, 296.
  Ordines Senioritatis, 261.
  Orleans, University of, 182.
  Orwell Rectory, 12.
  Oughtred, Wm, 252.

  Paget, Sir Wm, 6.
  Paley, Wm, 265, 275, 279, 299.
  Parham, Peter, 213.
  Paris, University of, 182, 252.
  Parke, Jas, 130, 138, 139, 173.
  Parker, Matthew, 4, 5, 6, 7.
  Parker, Nich, 155.
  Parker, Roger, 155.
  Parne, Thos, 215.
  Parr, Queen Katherine, 6, 7.
  Paston, Clement, 201.
  Paulet Tankard, The, 123.
  Payne, 255.
  Peacock, Geo, 55, 81, 173, 179, 180, 182, 189, 276, 277, 290,
    291, 315.
  Pearson, John, 108, 111, 170.
  Peckitt of York, 116.
  Peile, John, 213.
  Pell, John, 254.
  Penalties, ch XII.
  Pendlebury, Rich, 316.
  Pensioners, 29, 31, 33, 34.
  Pepys, Thos, 217.
  Perry, Chas, 76, 78, 79, 81, 82.
  Perry Plate, The, 124.
  Pheasaunt Tankard, The, 123.
  Philip of Spain, 108.
  Physwick's Hostel, 86, 87.
  Plate, College, ch VI.
  Plume, Thos, 315.
  Plumian Professorship, 315.
  Poll-Men, _see_ ch XV.
  Pollock, J.F, 173, 284, 287.
  Porson, Rich, 114, 172.
  Portraits, College, ch VI.
  Pour, Nich, 155.
  Pour, Rich, 155.
  Pour, Wm, 155.
  Pre-elections, 59, 60, 62, 64.
  Prime and Ultimate Ratios, 232.
  _Principia_ of Newton, ch XIII.
  Prior, Matthew, 112.
  Private Tutors, 307-310.
  Professors' Examinations, 297.
  Pull, Nich, 155.

  Raeburn, Hen, 109.
  Raine, Matthew, 110.
  Rait, R.S, 200.
  Rashdall, Hastings, 179, 199, 220.
  Ray, John, 169, 215.
  Rayleigh, Lord, 316.
  Rayleigh Prizes, 266.
  Record, Robt, 254.
  Redman, Bishop, 57.
  Redman, John, 5, 9, 11, 13, 20, 24, 88, 92.
  Regents, 183.
  Religious Students, 27.
  Remée, 107.
  Reneu, Wm, 259.
  Resisting Mediums, 235-236.
  Respondents, 253.
  Reynolds, Joshua, 107, 112.
  Rhetoric, Degrees in, 190, 191.
  Richard III, 110.
  Richard, Duke of York, 110.
  Richardson, John, 65, 66.
  Richmond, H.W, 316.
  Ring, Mrs, 112.
  Rod, Punishment by, 199-208, 210-214.
  Romney, Geo, 115.
  Rooke, Laurence, 254.
  Rose, C.L, 76.
  Rosekin, Andrew, 155.
  Roubiliac, L.F, 116.
  Routh, E.J, 308-310.
  Rud, Bishop, 57.
  Rustication, 221-224.
  Rutherford, Wm, 267.

  Sadleir, Lady, 315.
  Sadleirian Professorship, 315.
  St Mary's Ch, Camb, 11.
  St Michael's Ch, Camb, 12, 87, 98, 101.
  Salisbury, Earl of, 55, 62.
  Sanderson, Nich, _see_ Saunderson.
  Sandwich Cup, The, 122.
  Saunderson, Nich, 254, 268, 315.
  Scholars, Election of, 30, 31.
  Scholefield, Jas, 173.
  Scot, Major, 97.
  Sedgwick, Adam, 81, 110, 111, 173.
  Senate-House, 153, 260.
  Senate-House Examination, ch XV.
  Servant Students, 28.
  Seymour, Queen Jane, 106.
  Shaw-Lefevre, J.G, 130, 140, 141.
  Shepherd, Anth, 315.
  Shirley, Walsingham, 61, 223.
  Sides, Tutorial, 42, 43.
  Sidgwick, Hen, 110, 111, 176.
  Simeon, Chas, 74, 112.
  Simpson, Thos, 268, 284.
  Sizars, 28.
  Sloane Tankard, The, 123.
  Smith, Elismar, 103.
  Smith, John, 315.
  Smith, Robt, 111, 172, 254, 265, 267, 315.
  Smith, Thos, 4, 5.
  Smith's Prizes, 266.
  Solar System, ch XIII.
  Solomon, Proverbs of, 203.
  Somerset, Duke of, 112, 113, 114.
  Sophia, Princess, 107, 108.
  S.P.C.U. ch IV, 101.
  Special Examinations, 297.
  Spectrum Analysis, 242-243.
  Spedding, Jas, 173.
  Spicer, Robt, 129, 132.
  Stangs, 214-215.
  Statutes, Trinity, 1552, 30, 31.
      "        "     1554, 33.
      "        "     1560, 33, 34.
      "        "     1844, 35, 175,
      "        "     1861, 35, 175.
      "        "     1882, 35, 175.
  Stephen, Leslie, 174.
  Stevinus, Simon, 231.
  Still, Bishop, 57.
  Stocks, 214-215.
  Stokes, G.G, 315.
  Stuart, Bernard, 119, 124.
  Stuart, Jas, 316.
  Stuart, John, 119, 124.
  Subsizars, 28.
  Sussex, Duke of, 112.
  Sylvester, J.J, 311.

  Tavel, G.F, 287.
  Taylor, Brook, 254.
  Taylor Tankard, The, 123.
  Taylor, Tom, 174.
  Tennyson, Alf, 108, 115, 117, 174.
  Tennyson, Chas, 174.
  Tennyson, Fred, 174.
  Terms, loss of, 217.
  Thackeray, W.M, 170, 173.
  Thirlwall, Connop, 71, 72, 73, 83, 173.
  Thompson, W.H, 81, 109, 114, 174, 175, 176.
  Thomson, J.J, 316.
  Thomson, Wm, 311.
  Thorp, Thos, 73, 81, 307, 308.
  Thorwaldsen, Bertel, 117.
  Tindal, N.C, 76, 130, 137, 173.
  Tisserand, F.T, 241.
  Todhunter, Isaac, 302.
  Treasures, College, ch VI.
  Trench, R.C, 173.
  Trentine Disputes, 188, 189.
  Trinity Athletic Clubs, 124-126, 174.
  Trinity College, Foundation, ch I.
  Trinity College, History of, ch X.
  Trinity College, Numbers at, 163.
  Tripos, Mathematical, ch XV.
  Tripos, Origin of Name, 311-314.
  Trot, Warin, 160.
  Tunstall, Cuthbert, 253.
  Turner, Joseph, 286.
  Turton, Thos, 315.
  Tusser, Thos, 202, 210.
  Tutorial System, ch II.
  Tutors, College, ch II.
  Tutors, Private, 45, 307-310.

  Udall, Nich, 202.

  Vanderbank, John, 108.
  Vandyke, A, 119.
  VanSittart, A.A, 130, 140.
  Van Somer, Paul, 108.
  Vaughan, C.J, 110, 111.
  Verdon, Thos, 215.
  Verney Cup, The, 122.
  Vernon Tankard, The, 123.
  Victoria, Queen, 69.
  Vince, Sam, 284, 287, 315.
  Vortices, Cartesian, 227, 230, 236, 237, 238.

  Wakefield, Thos, 17.
  Walker, Rich, 99.
  Walling, 218.
  Wallis, John, 254.
  Walpole, Horace, 107.
  Walsh, B.D, 81.
  Walter, Hen, 285, 286.
  Ward, Seth, 254.
  Waring, Edw, 263, 277, 281, 286, 287, 315.
  Watson, Rich, 264, 279, 307.
  Watts, G.F, 108.
  Waves, 230, 236.
  Wensleydale, Lord, 130, 138, 139, 173.
  West, Robt, 93.
  Westcott, B.F, 101, 110, 111, 176.
  Westlake, John, 110, 111.
  Westminster Gowns, 68.
  Westminster Scholars, ch III, 248.
  Westminster School, ch III.
  Whetham, W.C.D, 43.
  Whewell, Wm, 69, 72, 73, 81, 108, 110, 111, 117, 174, 175, 221,
    252, 287, 288, 289, 291, 292.
  Whisson, Stephen, 42.
  Whiston, Wm, 254, 315.
  Whitgift, John, 36, 51, 93, 94, 165, 166, 210.
  Whittaker, E.T, 316.
  Wilkins, John, 40, 111, 112.
  William I, 179.
  Williams, Joshua, 138.
  Willis and Clark, 143, 152.
  Willis, Robt, 90.
  Wilson, John, 287, 307.
  Windows, Chapel, 91, 93, 102, 115, 116.
  Winthrop, Adam, 128, 129, 130, 131.
  Wollaston, F.J.H, 285.
  Wood, Jas, 277, 284, 286.
  Woodhouse, Robt, 286, 287, 290, 315.
  Wordsworth, Chris (1), 71, 72, 73, 74, 81.
  Wordsworth, Chris (2), 252, 263, 275, 279, 314.
  Wordsworth, John, 81.
  Wranglers, ch XV.
  Wren, Chris, ch VIII, 228.
  Wright, Edw, 254.
  Wright, J.M.F, 100, 174, 219, 293.

  Yool, G.V, 130, 142.
  York, Richard Duke of, 110.


CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY J.B. PEACE, M.A., AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS




WORKS BY W.W. ROUSE BALL.


  _A History of Trinity College, Cambridge._
      Pp. xiv+183. Price 3s net. Macmillan & Co., Ltd.

  _Trinity College, Cambridge_ (in the College Monographs Series).
      Pp. xiv+107. Price 2s net. J.M. Dent & Co.

  _A History of the First Trinity Boat Club._
      Pp. 190. Price 5s net. Bowes & Bowes.

  _A History of the Study of Mathematics at Cambridge._
      Pp. xvi+264. Price 6s. Cambridge University Press.

  _An Essay on the Genesis, Contents, and History of
    Newton's Principia._
      Pp. x+175. Price 6s net. Macmillan & Co., Ltd.

  _A History of Mathematics._
      Sixth Edition. Pp. xxiv+522. Price 12s 6d net.
        Macmillan & Co., Ltd.

  _A Primer of the History of Mathematics._
      Fourth Edition. Pp. iv+149. Price 2s 6d net.
        Macmillan & Co., Ltd.

  _Mathematical Recreations and Essays._
      Seventh Edition. Pp. xvi+492. Price 10s 6d net.
        Macmillan & Co., Ltd.




Transcriber's notes:


Both "primâ facie" and "prima facie" retained in line with the author's
inconsistent usage. Hyphenation of commonwealth/common-wealth not
regularised because the latter form occurs only within a quote from a
seventeenth-century source.





End of Project Gutenberg's Cambridge Papers, by Walter William Rouse Ball