PART II. Admitted The friend Fisher. the spring of the same year, and we also know that he was, CHAP. V. about the same time, admitted by accumulation to the degrees of bachelor and doctor of divinity of the university'. D.D. 1506. He was already well known to Fisher, whose guest he after- and guest of wards became at the lodge of Queens' College; it is therefore far from improbable that in the statutes of Christ's College given about this time by the lady Margaret, the influence of the great scholar was not without effect, and that, in the clause which provides for the study of the poets and orators of antiquity, is to be discerned the result of many a conversation between the president of Queens' and his illustrious guest. But be this as it may, it is certain that in the statutes that now invite our attention we have a more important and interesting code than any that has hitherto come before us,-presenting as it does the first endeavour to introduce a new element of culture,-being also a code given as the rule of a third society by a distinguished leader in the university, who had already presided over the discipline of two other foundations,-a code destined moreover afterwards to serve as the rule of a fourth society, and one yet more illustrious than that for which it was first compiled'. tutes of lege, given In the commencing chapter we miss the ordinary pre- Original staamble respecting the motives and designs of the foundress, Christ's Colit being evidently understood that the college is to be looked 1506. upon as an extension of the design of God's House: and it is expressly stated that Sickling and the three remaining fellows of the old society have given their assent to the new rule. The prefatory chapter contains a somewhat quaint comparison between the human frame and the organisation of a college. 1 This fact is referred to by dean Milman as a mere report, and Mr Seebohm omits all notice of it in his Oxford Reformers; the entry in the Grace Book however places it beyond dispute - Anno 1505 conceditur Des. Erasmo ut unicum vel si exigantur duo responsa una cum duobus sermonibus ad clerum sermoneque examinatorio, et lectura publica in Epistolam ad Romanos, vel quævis alia, sufficiant sibi ad incipiendum in theologia sic quod prius admit tatur baccalaureus in eadem et in- These statutes are printed in numerous re posed upon Conditions with those compared imposed at Jesus Col lege. CHAP. V. In the statute which follows next, relating to the duties. PART II. and authority of the master, a contrast to preceding codes is The master: observable in the numerous limitations imposed. Hitherto strictions im- the main object would seem to have been to secure obedience his authority, to his rule; no apprehension is manifested lest he should overstep the proper bounds and prove forgetful of the college interests while promoting his own; and he is generally to be found enjoying what was virtually almost unrestricted liberty of action. We find, it is true, in the statutes given to Jesus College a few years before, that he is required to take an oath that he will neither alienate, pledge, nor mortgage any of the property without the consent of the visitor and the majority of the fellows; and he is also required to consult with the fellows in rebus et negotiis arduis'. But these obligations are vague and easily evaded when compared with those here imposed. To the master of Christ's it is forbidden to take action with respect to any complaint or concession, until the majority of the fellows have given their assent; to alienate or farm out the lands, houses, tithes, dues, or other sources of revenue whether spiritual or temporal,-to bestow any office, fee, or pension from the college revenue,to present to any of the college livings,—and finally, to enter upon any matter wherein the college may be liable to suffer disgrace or detriment,-until all the fellows have been summoned and the consent of the majority obtained.' It is also required, inasmuch as it is not fit that the head should be separated from the body' (the statute here following up the metaphor originally instituted), that the master shall be resident two months out of every three throughout the year, forced. unless engaged elsewhere in college business, or able to plead Half-yearly exceptional circumstances. He is also required to render, be rendered twice a year, a true and faithful account of all receipts and finances. disbursements and to account for the surplusage. Residence strictly en accounts to of the college The fellows, twelve in number, are required, at the time of their election, to be masters of arts or at least of bachelor standing, and in priest's orders, or within a year of admission to the same; they are to be chosen if eligible from the 1 Documents, III 98. PART II. tions re fellowships. scholars, but, if fitting candidates be not forthcoming from CHAP. V. among the number of these, from the whole university: at no time are there to be more than two who are not in priest's orders. The northern sympathies of both the foundress and Qualificaher adviser are evinced in the statute requiring that at least quired for half, but not more than nine, of the fellows shall be natives Preference to of one or other of the nine counties of Northumberland, Durham, Westmoreland, Cumberland, York, Richmond, Lancashire, Derby, and Nottingham; no one of these counties however is to be represented by more than one fellow at a time. The remaining three fellows to be from any three of the remaining counties of the realm. be given to north coun trymen. at election. of this form prescribed in statutes of Jesus College. against dis In connexion with both the mastership and the fellow- Form of oath ships there is one feature which calls for special notice, namely the form of oath administered at the time of election. In the statutes of Jesus College we also find forms of oath Comparison imposed, but between the oaths prescribed at the two colleges with that there is an important difference; as regards the point in question, a comparison of the two fellowship oaths will suffice. The fellow of Jesus College is required to swear,-'I will Clint hold and maintain inviolate all and each of the statutes and pensations. ordinances of this college, without any cavilling or wrongful or perverse interpretation whatever, and as far as in me lies I will endeavour to secure their acceptance and observance by others'. Similarly the fellow of Christ's is required to swear, I will truthfully and scrupulously observe all aud each of the statutes which Margaret, the mother of our most illustrious king Henry VII and foundress of this college, has either herself or by her advisers given for its rule, and will as far as in me lies enforce their observance by my brother fellows'. Thus far the oaths are evidently substantially the PART II. Precedent for this clause in statutes of King's College. CHAP. V. same, but in a subsequent clause of the oath administered at Christ's we find this addition,-'I will at no time seek for a dispensation with respect to any one of the statutes of our foundation, or this my oath, neither will I take any steps for the obtaining of such dispensation or in any way accept it if obtained by others.' It is to be observed that this latter clause has a precedent in the fellowship oath administered at King's College (which in dean Peacock's opinion Fisher had taken as his model), that it is inserted in the oath administered at St. John's, -as contained in the later codes drawn up by Fisher in the years 1524 and 15303,-that it is retained in the statutes given by Elizabeth to the same society in 1576, and in those that received the royal sanction in the twelfth of Victoria. It is also to be observed that at each of the above three colleges, as also at Queens', Clare Hall, and Pembroke, the queen in council has always been the supreme authority; and that to this authority there has always belonged, as either implied or distinctly asserted in the several codes, an unquestioned right to alter, rescind, or dispense with any of the statutes of each foundation. In dean Peacock's view we are consequently here presented with dean Peacock a most difficult question.' 'How,' he asks (in discussing the clause as it appears in the statutes of King's College), 'could the authorities of the college, the provost and fellows, consistently with the oath which they had taken, either propose a change themselves, or accept it, if procured by others'?' Question raised by in connexion with this clause. 1 Dean Peacock, Observations, etc. p. 103. Early Statutes of St. John's College (ed. Mayor), pp. 306 and 600. 3 In Caius, Corpus, Downing, Trinity Hall, Catherine Hall, it is the queen in council or in a court of equity. In Peterhouse, Jesus, Magdalen, Sidney, Emmanuel, the visitors, as representing the founders and deriving from them peculiar jurisdiction and authority, would either be competent to sanction such changes, or at all events to authorise an application to the queen in council or in a court of equity.' Peacock, p. 101. Dean Peacock observes with reference to Christ's College, 'There is no power expressly reserved by the statutes of this college to effect or to authorise such alterations as time and other circumstances might render necessary' (p. 99). This does not quite agree with the conclusion of the final statute, chapter 48, where we read, Et reservamus item nobis auctoritatem mutandi et innovandi quæcunque statuta priora aut alia adjiciendi pro nostro arbitrio cum expresso consensu magistri et sociorum prædictorum.' Documents, III p. 212. In the oath taken by the master he again swears to observe all 'ordinationes et statuta......jam edita sive in posterum edenda.' Ibid. III 187-8. ♦ Ibid. p. 96. PART II. In other words, how could the crown reserve to itself a right CHAP. V. to alter, and the master or the fellow swear at the same time never to accept any alteration whatever. 'It is known,' he subsequently adds, 'as an historical fact, that such dispensations were repeatedly granted by the authority of the crown, and it was never contended, nor even conceived, that the same royal authority which in those days was considered competent to dispense with or alter the whole body of the statutes, could be controlled in the exercise of a temporary dispensation of one or more of them, in favour of any specified individual. But if it be admitted that the same power which gave the statutes, did not, from the moment of the completion of that act, abdicate and renounce its authority, but continued to retain and practically to exercise it in the modification and dispensation of its own laws, and that consequently the clause in the oath against the acceptance of dispensations, could not refer to those which were granted by the crown, it may very reasonably be asked what were the dispensations which it was designed to exclude, by subjecting those who sought for or accepted them to the imputation of perjury?' The answer which he gives to the question he raises is somewhat unsatisfactory, inasmuch as he discusses it in connexion with the original statutes of Trinity College, 'when,' as he observes, 'the reformation of religion in this kingdom was only in progress towards completion, and when the minds of all men were familiar with the dispensations from the distinct obligations of oaths which were so readily granted and accepted, both in the university and elsewhere'.' It is obvious that this latter observation is not applicable to The clause the præ-Reformation period, and we are consequently under aimed at the necessity of enquiring what may be supposed to have tions from been the design of this oath as originally framed in the fifteenth century? It is to be noted then that there is satisfactory evidence that these precautions were, in the first instance, aimed at dispensations from Rome. In the twentieth of the statutes given by the lady Margaret to Christ's College, we have what is entitled Forma et Conditio Obliga1 Ibid. p. 97. originally dispensa Rome. |