FOOTNOTES:
[38] At the moment that Sir William Brereton visited Dublin (July, 1635), the College and Church of the Jesuits in Back Lane, with its carved pulpit and high altar, had lately (1633) been annexed to Trinity College, and lectures were held there every Tuesday, Lord Corke paying for the Lecturer. Brereton also saw a cloister and Chapel of the Capuchins, which had been turned into S. Stephen’s Hall, in which 18 scholars of the College were then accommodated. It is remarkable that all attempts, whether promoted by the College or not, to shape the University of Trinity College according to the peculiar model of Oxford and Cambridge have failed.
[39] It is, indeed, rehearsed with great care in these Statutes that they are approved of by the Provost and Fellows, and imposed with their consent; but that consent was extorted by interfering with the appointment of Provost, and choosing Chappel to carry out the new policy.
[40] He was Milton’s College Tutor, and is said to be the Damœtas in Lycidas. All the histories tell the anecdote of his pressing his adversary in a public disputation at Cambridge so keenly that the unfortunate man swooned in the pulpit, when King James, who was present, took up the argument, and presently confessed himself worsted. This kind of subtlety may have enabled him to reconcile his various breaches of statute with his sworn obligations. His holding of the Bishopric and Provostship together was, however, openly sanctioned by Laud. His Latin autobiography gives us a picture quite inconsistent with the complaints of the Fellows and the resolutions of the Irish Parliament against him. It is a string of pious lamentations, e.g.—
“Jam quindecim annos corpus vix ægrum traho
Estque jubilæum hic annus ætatis meæ.
Subinde climactera nova vitæ meæ
Incipit et excutit reliquias dentium
Ante putrium, monetque mortis sim memor.”
[41] Martin seems to have been the best of the early Provosts. But he had special qualifications, being a Galway man, educated first in France, then at Cambridge, and then appointed a Fellow of the College, by competition, in 1610. Thus he added to his Irish blood and knowledge of the country a wide and various experience. But the terrible insurrection which swept over the land made these qualities of little import beside his moral strength. When driven from his Diocese of Meath, he was made temporary Provost, according to the petition of the Fellows, who found fault with Faithful Tate (Stubbs, appendix). He suffered further persecution from the Parliamentary Commissioners, but through all his adversities maintained the same constancy. “Is est qualis alii tantum videri volunt, et in humaniori literatura, et in vitæ integritate germanissimus, certe Nathaniel sine fraude.”—Taylor, p. 238.
[42] The reader will be glad to see the text of this document, which I have copied from the original in Lord Ormonde’s possession:—
“Cum per Mortem Reverendissimi in Christo Patris Guilielmi nup. Archiepi
“Cantuariensis et totius Angliæ primatis Dubliniensis nostra Academia Cancellarii necessario et nobili præsidio immature
“Sit orbata: nos Anthonius providentia divina Midensis Epus Præpositus, et Socii Seniores Collegii sctæ et individuæ
“Trinitatis Reginæ Elizabethæ juxta Dublin, secundum licentiam et potestatem nobis per Chartam fundationis
“Concessam, Honoratissimum Dominum, Dominum Jacobum Marchionem Ormoniæ, Comitem Ormoniæ et Ossoriæ, Vice-Comitem Thurles, Baronem de
“Arcloe, Dūm Locumtenentem, et generalem Gubernatorem Regni Hibniæ et Regiæ Majestati a secretioribus conciliis, Virum
“Nunquam satis laudatum, de quo quicquid in laudem dicitur, infra meritum dicitur, Virum spectatæ integritatis et fidei erga principem et
“Patriam veræ Religionis acerrimum Vindicem, Literarum et Literatorum Mæcenatem amplissimum et de nobis imprimis et Collegio nso in hisce
“Temporis angustiis optime meritum, quippe qui nos, et res nostras ad ruinam inclinantes adjutrice manu sustinuit, et ab internecione et
“Interitu sæpius vindicavit, ut antehac dignissimum semper censuimus, qui ad Clavem Academiæ sederet, ita nunc Academiæ p’dictæ
“Cancellarium junctis Suffragiis et Calculis eligimus, nominamus, et admittimus, Hancque dictionem nominationem et admissionem
“Subscriptis nominibus et communi Sigillo, et per litt p’ntes confirmamus. Datum e Collegio nostro duodecimo die Martii, Anno Dni. millesimo
“Sexcentesimo quadragesimo quarto.
| “Tho: Seele. | Ant: Midensis, | Jo: Kerdiff. |
| “Gul. Raymond. | Coll: pr. po. | Tho: Locke. |
| Ja: Bishopp.” |
There is appended the common seal—viz., on thick red wax the College Arms as usual, but with towers domed and flagged, each flag blowing outwards, the harp much larger than usual, and shield surrounded by an oval, and round it the usual legend, with APRILL added, and the date (1612) in the space over the shield. See [page 11] for seal, with some of the signatures of the Senior Fellows. Three of them who had been driven from their livings had petitioned the Lord Deputy to be restored to their Senior Fellowships, and accordingly now show their gratitude. Seele was afterwards Provost.
[43] Several are mentioned by Dr. Stubbs, op. cit. p. 95.
[44] As regards the estates, cf. Stubbs, p. 111. I add the copy of the appointment of Jeremy Taylor by Ormonde, preserved among the Ormonde MSS.:—“To all Xian people to whom these presents shall come, greeting. Know yee that I James Marquis of Ormonde Earle of Ormond Ossory and Brecknock Visct Thurles Lord Baron of Arcloe and Lanthony Lord of the Regalities and Libertyes of the County of Tiperary one of the Lords of his Maties most Honble privy Councell of both Kingdoms of England and Ireland Lord [&c., &c.] and Chancellor of the University of Dublyn considering the great learning the eminent Piety and the exemplary good life and conversacon of the Reverend Father in God Jeremy Taylour Doctor of Divinity and now Lord Bpp Elect of the United Bishoprick of Downe and Connor and his wisdome ability and experience in manageing and governing all affaires incident to the office of a Vice-Chancellor of an university and necessary for the advancement of Piety and Learning doe therefore hereby nominate constitute and appoint the said Reverend Father in God Doctor Jeremy Taylour Vice-Chancellor of the University aforesaid and doe by these presents authorize him to doe execute & performe all such act & acts Thing and Thinges & to exercise such powers & authorityes & to receive all such proffitts & benefitts as to the said office of Vice-Chancellor appertaineth & that as fully amply and beneficially to all intents & purposes as any person or persons formerly holding or exercising the said office of Vice-Chauncellor held enjoyed or exercised, or ought to have held enjoyed or exercised the same. In witness whereof I have to these presents sett my hand and fixed my seall the one & thirtieth day of August in the yeare of our Lord God 1660 & in the twelfth year of the Rainn of our Soveraine Lord Charles the 2nd by the Grace [&c.].—Ormonde.”
[45] Taylor’s History, p. 43.
[46] Preface to the London edition of his University Sermon, 1661.
[47] Cf. the interesting article on this eminent man by Professor G. Stokes in the Jour. R. S. of Antiq., Ireland, for 1890, pp. 17, seq.
[48] In the MS. preserved at Armagh, containing an account of Adam Loftus’ eloquence on the subject of Trinity College, the writer, who lived about the centenary of its foundation, says (p. 227)—“Of the old structure there remains no more than the steeple, which belonged to that said monastery [All Hallowes] which was lately restored and beautified under the Government of Thomas Seele, late Provost of this Colledge.” Seele began the enlargements of the College, which succeeded one another rapidly for the next century and a-half.
[49] Harris’ Ware. Loftus was made Archbishop of Armagh at the age of 28!
[50] In his MS. autobiography, preserved in his Library. For an interesting account of Archbishop Marsh, see Christian Examiner, vol. xi., p. 647. 1831. The ill education of the young scholars has again become a grave difficulty in Trinity College, since the establishment of the so-called system of Intermediate Education. The old hedge-school masters sent us better pupils.
[51] Printed in the Christian Examiner, vol. ii., p. 762, 2nd series (1833).
[52] Bishop Dopping, in his letter to the Hon. Robert Boyle (Boyle’s Life and Correspondence, vol. i.), gives an interesting account of these classes, at which he states Fellows and Students attended to the number of eighty, and that they, following the Provost’s example, made considerable progress in the Irish language.
[53] Dunton speaks of it in 1699 as about to be built. The present Royal Hospital at Kilmainham is the oldest secular building of any importance about Dublin. It was finished shortly before 1700, when it must have been quite unique.
[54] e.g., Mr. Dunbar Ingram.
[55] It may be read in Taylor’s History (pp. 55, seq.) or in Dr. Stubbs’, who gives Archbishop King as the original authority. Mr. Heron tells us that one of these members was a Roman Catholic.
[56] “He promised that he would preserve them in their liberties and properties, and rather augment than diminish the privileges and immunities granted to them by his predecessors.”—Abp. King’s State of Protestants, sec. lxxix.
[57] This entry must have been made subsequently and separately.
[58] “Many of the chambers were turned into prisons for Protestants. The Garrison destroyed the doors, wainscots, closets, and floors, and damnified it in the building and furniture of private rooms, to at least the value of two thousand pounds.”—King, sec. lxxix.
[59] This entry requires further verification, for Huntingdon never resumed the office after his flight, and the new Provost was not yet appointed. On the piece of plate presented to the College in 1690 he calls himself nuper Præpositus, lately Provost.
[60] Stubbs, pp. 127-133.
[61] Moore, who retired to the Continent with James II., was important enough to be afterwards appointed Rector of the University of Paris.
[62] Wonderful to relate, the chalices which ran these and other terrible risks, and the flagons of the same date, figured on [p. 44], escaped, and are still in constant use in the College Chapel. They will be more fully described in another chapter.
[63] Brereton says in 1635 (Travels, p. 144)—“The cittie of Dublin is extending his boundes and limits very farr, much additions of buildings are lately made, and some of these very fair, stately and complete buildings. Every commodity is grown very dear.”
[64] Stubbs, pp. 144, 145. The author does not explain what the supper Commencement fees were, nor does he state that some land was bought by the College to complete the Park.
[65] The proposal to recognise as students those who had matriculated, but lodged in the city of Dublin, is as old as Bedell’s time, who favours it. Cf. College Calendar for 1833, Introd., p. xxvi.
[CHAPTER III.]
THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY UP TO 1758.
Nec conclusisti me in manibus inimici: statuisti in loco spatioso pedes meos.—Ps. xxx. 9.
The great expansion of the College about the time of its first Centenary seems to have been rather the effect of circumstances than of a strong and able government. The Provosts were perpetually being promoted to Bishoprics, and were in any case not very remarkable men. Nevertheless, the Centenary was celebrated with great pomp, and in a manner widely different from that which is now in fashion at such feasts. Almost the whole day was occupied with various orations in praise of founders or of the studies of the place. We do not hear that any visitors but the local grandees of Dublin attended, nor is there any detail concerning the entertainment of the body, after the weariness inflicted upon the mind, of the audience. There may possibly be some details still concealed in the College Register, the publication of which among our historical records is earnestly to be desired. Dr. Stubbs (pp. 136-8) prints the following:—
In the morning there were the customary prayers in the Chapel and a sermon.
At 2 p.m., after a musical instrumental performance, an oration was made by Peter Browne, F.T.C., containing a panegyric in honour of Queen Elizabeth: “Deus nobis hæc otia fecit.” Dominus Maude, Fellow Commoner, followed with a Carmen Seculare in Latin hexameters—
“Aspice venturo lætentur ut omnia seclo
... sequitur ramis insignis olivæ.”
Then Benjamin Pratt, F.T.C., followed with praise of King James the First: “Munificentissimi Academiæ auctoris;” “pariter pietate vel armis egregii.”
George Carr, F.T.C., commemorated the Chancellors of the University during the preceding century—
“Nec nos iterum meminisse pigebit Elissæ.”
Sir Richard Gethinge, Bart., followed with an English poem in memory of the illustrious founder of the College.
Robert Mossom, F.T.C., delivered a Latin oration in praise of Charles the First and Charles the Second—
“Heu pietas, heu prisca fides ...
... Amavit nos quoque Daphnis.”
Then followed a recitation of some pastoral verses by Dr. Tighe and Dr. Denny, Fellow Commoners, bearing upon the revival of the University by William and Mary—
“Jam fides et pax, et honor pudorque
Priscus, et neglecta redire Virtus
Audet.”
A thanksgiving ode was then sung, accompanied by instrumental music.
A grateful commemoration of the benefits which the City of Dublin had conferred upon the University, by Richard Baldwin, F.T.C.—
“Laudabunt alii claram Rhodon aut Mitylenen.”
Verses commemorating the hospitality shown to the members of the University when dispersed, by the sister Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, were recited by Benjamin Hawkshaw, B.A., William Tisdall, B.A., Jeremiah Harrison, B.A.—
“ ... Quales decet esse Sorores.”
Then there was a Latin debate on the subject, “Whether the Sciences and Arts are more indebted to the Ancients or the Moderns.”
For the Ancients—Nicholas Foster, B.A.
For the Moderns—Robert Cashin, B.A.
Then followed a “Carmen seculare lyricum,” recited by Anthony Dopping, son of the Bishop of Meath—
“Alterum in lustrum meliusque semper
... Proroget ævum.”
Concerning the increase of University studies, in a humorous speech by Thomas Leigh, B.A.
Eugene Lloyd, Proctor of the University, closed the Acts.
A skilled band of musicians followed the procession as they left the building.
To this Dunton, writing from Dublin in 1699, while the memory of it was still fresh, adds some curious details—
Leaving Dr. Phœnix’s house, our next visit was to the College of Dublin, where several worthy gentlemen (both Fellows and others) had been great benefactors to my auction. When we came to the College, we went first to my friend Mr. Young’s chamber; but he not being at home we went to see the Library, which is over the Scholars’ lodgings, the length of one of the quadrangles, and contains a great many choice books of great value, particularly one, the largest I ever saw for breadth; it was an “Herbal,” containing the lively portraitures of all sorts of trees, plants, herbs, and flowers. By this “Herbal” lay a small book, containing about sixty pages in a sheet, to make it look like “the Giant and the Dwarf.” There also (since I have mentioned a giant) we saw lying on a table the thigh-bone of a giant, or at least of some monstrous overgrown man, for the thigh-bone was as long as my leg and thigh; which is kept there as a convincing demonstration of the vast bigness which some human bodies have in former times arrived to. We were next showed by Mr. Griffith, a Master of Arts (for he it was that showed us these curiosities), the skin of one Ridley, a notorious Tory, which had been long ago executed; he had been begged for an anatomy, and, being flayed, his skin was tanned, and stuffed with straw. In this passive state he was assaulted with some mice and rats, not sneakingly behind his back, but boldly before his face, which they so much further mortified, even after death, as to eat it up; which loss has since been supplied by tanning the face of one Geoghagan, a Popish Priest, executed about six years ago for stealing; which said face is put in the place of Ridley’s.
At the east end of this Library, on the right hand, is a chamber called “The Countess of Bath’s Library,” filled with many handsome folios, and other books, in Dutch binding, gilt, with the Earl’s Arms impressed upon them; for he had been some time of this house.
On the left hand, opposite to this room, is another chamber, in which I saw a great many manuscripts, medals, and other curiosities. At the west end of the Library there is a division made by a kind of wooden lattice-work, containing about thirty paces, full of choice and curious books, which was the Library of that great man, Archbishop Ussher, Primate of Armagh, whose learning and exemplary piety has justly made him the ornament, not only of that College (of which he was the first scholar that ever was entered in it, and the first who took degrees), but of the whole Hibernian nation.
At the upper end of this part of the Library hangs at full length the picture of Dr. Chaloner,[66] who was the first Provost of the College, and a person eminent for learning and virtue. His picture is likewise at the entrance into the Library, and his body lies in a stately tomb made of alabaster. At the west end of the Chapel, near Dr. Chaloner’s picture (if I do not mistake), hangs a new skeleton of a man, made up and given by Dr. Gwither, a physician of careful and happy practice, of great integrity, learning, and sound judgment, as may be seen by those treatises of his that are inserted in some late “Philosophical Transactions.”
Thus, Madam, have I given you a brief account of the Library, which at present is but an ordinary pile of building, and cannot be distinguished on the outside; but I hear they design the building of a new Library, and, I am told, the House of Commons in Ireland have voted £3,000 towards carrying it on.[67]
After having seen the Library, we went to visit Mr. Minshull, whose father I knew in Chester. Mr. Minshull has been student in the College for some time, and is a very sober, ingenious youth, and I do think is descended from one of the most courteous men in Europe; I mean Mr. John Minshull, bookseller in Chester.
After a short stay in this gentleman’s chamber, we were led by one Theophilus, a good-natured sensible fellow, to see the new house now building for the Provost, which, when finished, will be very noble and magnificent.[68] After this, Theophilus showed us the gardens belonging to the College, which were very pleasant and entertaining. Here was a sun-dial, on which might be seen what o’clock it was in most parts of the world.
This dial was placed upon the top of a stone representing a pile of books; and not far from this was another sun-dial, set in box, of very large compass, the gnomon of it being very near as big as a barber’s pole.
Leaving this pleasant garden, we ascended several steps, which brought us into a curious walk, where we had a prospect to the west of the city and to the east of the sea and harbour; on the south we could see the mountains of Wicklow, and on the north the River Liffey, which runs by the side of the College.
Having now, and at other times, thoroughly surveyed the College, I shall here attempt to give your Ladyship a very particular account of it. It is called Trinity College, and is the sole University of Ireland. It consists of three squares, the outward being as large as both the inner, one of which, of modern building, has not chambers on every side; the other has, on the south side of which stands the Library, the whole length of the square. I shall say nothing of the Library here (having already said something of it), so I proceed to tell you, Madam, that the Hall and Butteries run the same range with the Library, and separate the two inner squares. It is an old building, as is also the Regent-house, which from a gallery looks into the Chapel, which has been of late years enlarged, being before too little for the number of Scholars, which are now, with the Fellows, &c., reckoned about 340. They have a garden for the Fellows, and another for the Provost, both neatly kept, as also a bowling green, and large parks for the students to walk and exercise in. The Foundation consists of a Provost (who at present is the Reverend Dr. George Brown, a gentleman bred in this house since a youth, when he was first entered, and one in whom they all count themselves very happy, for he is an excellent governor, and a person of great piety, learning, and moderation), seven Senior Fellows, of whom two are Doctors in Divinity, eight Juniors, to which one is lately added, and seventy Scholars. Their Public Commencements are at Shrovetide, and the first Tuesday after the eighth of July. Their Chancellor is His Grace the Duke of Ormonde. Since the death of the Right Reverend the Bishop of Meath[69] they have had no Vice-Chancellor, only pro re nata.
The University was founded by Queen Elizabeth, and by her and her successors largely endowed, and many munificent gifts and legacies since made by several other well-disposed persons, all whose names, together with their gifts, are read publicly in the Chapel every Trinity Sunday, in the afternoon, as a grateful acknowledgment to the memory of their benefactors; and on the 9th of January, 1693 (which completed a century from the Foundation of the College), they celebrated their first secular day, when the Provost, Dr. Ashe, now Bishop of Clogher, preached, and made a notable entertainment for the Lords Justices, Privy Council, Lord Mayor and Aldermen of Dublin. The sermon preached by the Provost was on the subject of the Foundation of the College, and his text was Matthew xxvi. 13: “Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her;” which in this sermon the Provost applied to Queen Elizabeth, the Foundress of the College. The sermon was learned and ingenious, and afterwards printed by Mr. Ray, and dedicated to the Lords Justices, who at that time were the Lord Henry Capel, Sir Cyril Wiche, and William Duncomb, Esq. In the afternoon there were several orations in Latin spoke by the scholars in praise of Queen Elizabeth and the succeeding Princes, and an ode made by Mr. Tate (the Poet Laureate), who was bred up in this College. Part of the ode was as this following:—
Great Parent, hail! all hail to Thee;
Who has the last distress surviv’d,
To see this joyful day arriv’d;
The Muses’ second Jubilee.
Another century commencing,
No decay in thee can trace;
Time, with his own law dispensing,
Adds new charms to every grace,
That adorns thy youthful face.
After War’s alarms repeated,
And a circling age completed,
Numerous offspring thou dost raise,
Such as to Juverna’s praise
Shall Liffey make as proud a name
As that of Isis, or of Cam.
Awful Matron, take thy seat
To celebrate this festival;
The learn’d Assembly well to treat,
Blest Eliza’s days recall:
The wonders of her reign recount,
In strains that Phœbus may surmount.
Songs for Phœbus to repeat.
She ’twas that did at first inspire,
And tune the mute Hibernian lyre.
Succeeding Princes next recite;
With never-dying verse requite
Those favours they did shower.
’Tis this alone can do them right:
To save them from Oblivion’s night,
Is only in the Muse’s power.
But chiefly recommend to Fame
Maria, and great William’s name,
Whose Isle to him her Freedom owes
And surely no Hibernian Muse
Can her Restorer’s praise refuse,
While Boyne and Shannon flows.
After this ode had been sung by the principal gentlemen of the Kingdom, there was a very diverting speech made in English by the Terræ Filius.[70] The night concluded with illuminations, not only in the College but in other places. Madam, this day being to be observed but once in a hundred years, was the reason why I troubled your ladyship with this account.
The sermon preached by Dr. St.-G. Ashe, who presently resigned the Provostship, is still extant;[71] so is the musical ode, but so scarce that there seems to be only one copy known, which the researches for the present feast have unearthed. Some of the text, which was composed by Nahum Tate, sometime (1672) a scholar of the House, is given above from Dunton; the rest, which is printed with the music, is of the same quality. It is chiefly a panegyric of the reigning sovereigns, William and Mary, justified by their recent indulgences to the College on account of its losses in the Revolution. The music of the ode was composed by no less a person than Henry Purcell, and would certainly have been repeated at our Tercentenary had it been equal to his standard works. But it is a curiously poor and perfunctory piece of work, whereas the anthem then recently composed by Blow, “I beheld, and lo, a great multitude,” still holds its place in our Chapel, and we gladly reproduce it in the present festival. The title-page of the score of the ode states that it was performed at Christ Church, whereas the accounts of the celebration speak of it in the College—a discrepancy which I cannot reconcile.
TITLE-PAGE OF THE CENTENARY SERMON.
A SERMON PREACHED IN Trinity-College Chappell,
BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN
JANUARY the 9th, 169 3 4 .
Being the First SECULAR DAY SINCE ITS FOUNDATION BY Queen ELIZABETH
By St. George Ashe, D. D. Provost of Trinity College, Dublin.
Published by the Lords Justices Command.
Printed by Joseph Ray on College Green, for William Norman
Bookseller in Dames Street, Dublin. 1694
The series of Provosts to whom I have referred—Ashe (1692), G. Browne (1695), Peter Browne (1699), Pratt (1710)—were all promoted to Bishoprics, except the first Browne, who died of the blow of a brickbat which struck him in a College row, and Pratt, who was so insignificant that he could only obtain a Deanery as a bribe for his resignation. Of these but one man has left a name, Peter Browne[72] who composed a work on the “Procedure of the Understanding,” evidently called forth by the recent Essay of Locke, which had been introduced into the post-graduate course by Ashe, and was then very popular. More celebrated, and more interesting in this history, is the well-known Charge to the clergy of Cork on drinking healths, in which the Bishop criticises “the glorious, pious, and immortal memory” so dear to Irish Protestants, and all such other toasts, as senseless, heathenish, and offensive. It was always understood by his contemporaries that this Charge showed the writer to be a Jacobite, and when we hear of the long struggle of Provost Baldwin in subduing this spirit in the College, we may fairly conjecture that during the reign of Browne (1699-1710) it was allowed to grow without active interference. It may indeed be thought that the declaration of loyalty to Queen Anne, drawn up and signed by the Senate in 1708 (Stubbs, Appendix xxxiv.), where Peter Browne’s name as Provost appears next to the Vice-Chancellor’s, is evidence against this statement. The declaration was caused by the speech of one Edward Forbes, who was deprived of his degrees. I do not, however, think this merely formal declaration can overcome the indirect, but serious evidence of the Bishop’s personal Charge. There seem to be very few details published concerning this remarkable man’s life. But a group of famous young men were then passing through the College—Swift, Berkeley, Delany; and King, an old scholar, was Archbishop of Dublin. Berkeley was a Fellow, but we hear nothing of him in the College politics of the day.[73]
The Foundation, therefore, had now become strong enough to live and flourish in spite of, or in disregard of, its governors. There is now, indeed, much insubordination mentioned. There seem to have been many disturbances; the discipline of the place had doubtless suffered through constantly changing Provosts, who were probably counting upon promotion as soon as they were appointed. It was therefore of no small importance to the ultimate success of Trinity College, that for almost the whole of the eighteenth century it was ruled by three men who were not promoted, and who devoted a life’s interest to their duties. In the forty years preceding 1717 there had been (counting Moore) eight Provosts. In the eighty years succeeding there were only three, and of these the first, Baldwin, was probably the guiding spirit during the rule of his weak predecessor, since 1710. The reasons which prevented Baldwin going the way of all Provosts in those days, and passing on to a Bishopric, have never been explained. His contemporaries were more surprised at it (says Taylor) than we can be. And yet these reasons are manifest enough, and disclosed to us in one of the most obvious sources of information—the private correspondence of Primate Boulter. That narrow and mischievous Whig politician, whose whole correspondence is one vast network of jobbing in appointments, came into power in 1724, and was for eighteen years the arbiter of promotion, even of lay promotion, in Ireland. He was a man so tenacious of a few ideas, that he keeps repeating them in the same form with a persistency quite ludicrous, if it had not led to very mischievous effects. He shows the same earnestness, whether it be in importuning Bishops and Ministers for the promotion to a Canonry of an obscure friend whose eyesight was so defective that he was unfit for any post; or whether it be in urging his narrow policy that all the high offices in Ireland should be filled by Englishmen. “I hope, after what I have written in many letters before, I need not again urge the necessity of the See not being filled with a native of the country.”[74] And it is remarkable that by natives he only means the Anglo-Irish who had now attained like Swift, some feeling for the rights of Ireland. Hence he shows in many letters a marked dislike and suspicion of Trinity College, which asserted its independence against him. This nettled his officious and meddling temper considerably. “I cannot help saying it would have been for the King’s service here if what has lately been transacting in relation to the Professors had been concerted with some of the English here, and not wholly with the natives, and that after a secret manner; that the College might have thought it their interest to have some dependence on the English” (i., 227). Swift and Delany he accordingly disliked exceedingly, and so persistent was his hostility to the Fellows, whom he calls a nest of Jacobites, that he kept hindering their promotion to the Bench during the whole of his unfortunate reign—for such we may call it—over Ireland. Twice he touches upon the claims of Baldwin, whom he confesses to be a strong Whig politician; he speaks of him with coldness. He mentions with alarm the rumour that the Provost is to be promoted, because he regards it impossible to find a safe man to succeed him in the College. He clearly urges this difficulty as a reason against his promotion. In another place—which has been called a recommendation of Baldwin—he uses the following words:—“Since my return the Bishop of Ossory is dead, and we [the Lords Justices] have this day joined in a letter to your Grace, mentioning the most proper persons here to be promoted to that See. But I must beg leave to assure your Grace that I think it is of great importance to the English interest that some worthy person should be sent us from England to fill this vacancy. If any person here should be thought of, I take the promotion most for the King’s service here will be the making Dr. Baldwin Bishop, and Dr. Gilbert Provost.” To this letter he receives a reply in ten days, to which he answers in his next—“I am glad to hear of the promotion of Dr. Edward Tenison to the See of Ossory, and thank your Grace for the news.”
So successful, indeed, was this malefactor to the College in impressing his policy upon English ministers, that while the years 1703-20 had seen six future Bishops and three future Deans obtain Fellowships, from 1721 to 1763 but one Fellow was elected, Hugh Hamilton, who obtained either honour. The non-promotion of Baldwin was therefore a mere instance of Boulter’s policy, which prevailed for half-a-century. But the accident of this injustice was of great indirect benefit to the College. Instead of many Bishoprics, we obtained our first permanent Provost.
The greatest luminary in the united Church of England and Ireland at the time was the modest and pious George Berkeley. How does Boulter accept his promotion, which he could not prevent? “As to a successor to the Bishop of Cloyne, my Lord Lieutenant looks upon it as settled in England that Dean Berkeley is to be made Bishop here on the first occasion. I have therefore nothing more to say on that point, but that I wish the Dean’s promotion may answer the expectation of his friends in England!”
The next two Provosts were laymen and politicians, to whom promotion did not bar the retention of the Collegiate office. When the last of these three men passed away, the government of the College again lapsed into the hands of a series of Bishops-expectant, succeeding one another with monotonous obscurity, till the advent of Bartholomew Lloyd in 1837 marks a new epoch, almost in modern times. The eighteenth century, therefore, stands out with great distinctness in this history. Almost all the buildings of the College that give it dignity date from this time. A new conception of what the country owed to the University, and the University promised to fulfil, entered into men’s minds. Grants of hundreds now became grants of thousands; salaries were no longer pittances but prizes; the Fellows of the College became dignitaries, not only on account of their position, but their wealth; and the much-tried and long-struggling College at length attained security, respect, and influence throughout the country. The external appearance of the buildings changed as completely as the spirit of the students. The College in 1770 was far more like that of 1892 than that of 1700.
The first of these three Provosts, Baldwin, had probably more influence on the history of the College than any one since the founders. He was either a self-made man, or put forward by some influence which disguised itself, so that many varying traditions were current about his origin and youth. Taylor, who gives very explicitly the authorities for his story, tells us (p. 249) that Baldwin, being at school at Colne, in Lancashire, where he was born in 1672, killed one of his schoolfellows with a blow, and so fled to Ireland. On arriving in Dublin, being then twelve years of age, he was found crying in the streets, when a person who kept a coffee-house took pity on him, and brought him to his home, where he remained for some time in the capacity of a waiter. A few months after, Provost Huntingdon wanted a boy to take care of his horse, when Richard Baldwin was recommended to him, and the Provost had him instructed and entered at the College. Dr. Stubbs ignores this story altogether, apparently on the ground of the (not inconsistent) entry in Kilkenny College, that a boy of this name matriculated from that place in April, 1685; the College admission book, however, gives the date April, 1684; indeed, most of the dates of his earlier promotions appear inaccurate, for though he may have been a scholar in 1686, how can he have been a B.A. in 1689, when he is known to have fled to England, and to have supported himself by teaching in a school in Chester? Dr. Barrett’s statements are evidently only hearsay. It is certain that grants of money were given to him as a refugee in England in 1688. At all events, he was made a Fellow in 1693, and a Senior Fellow in 1697, from which time he either helped in governing, or governed the College, till his death in 1758. He was Vice-Provost, under a lazy absentee Provost, from 1710; he was appointed Provost in 1717.
Baldwin appears to have been in no sense a literary man, beyond what was necessary for his examinations; on the other hand, he was a strong and consistent Whig politician, a disciplinarian, and evidently very keen about the architectural improvement of the College. He accumulated a large fortune, which he left to endow it, and which various claimants of his name from England strove to appropriate for seventy years. In spite of all these merits towards the College, he is not remembered with affection. The extant portraits of him represent a stupid and expressionless face, suggesting severity without natural dignity or good breeding, though he became so great a figure in the College from the mere duration of his influence. He did little to improve the intellectual condition of the students. His temper was morose, and his policy of crushing out not only political, but other opposition among both students and Fellows made him for a long time very unpopular. It is more than likely that his tyrannical conduct in politics increased rather than diminished the Jacobite spirit in the College, for the recalcitrant tendencies of youth were then as they now are, and neither Queen Anne nor George I. was ever likely to inspire the Irish students with any enthusiastic loyalty.
But Baldwin may fairly be called the architect of the College. I do not include under that expression his vigilant supervision and enhancement of the College rents—a very important duty,—or his large bequests to the society, which have made the office of Provost one of wealth as well as of dignity. His claim to be remembered by the Irish public rests upon more obvious grounds. The undertaking of the present Library building coincides with his advent to power. It was actually commenced when, as Vice-Provost, he ruled for the easy-going Pratt. It was finished in the early and stormy years of his Provostship; and when we consider that of all the buildings which give Dublin the air and style of a capital not one then existed, we may better understand the largeness and boldness of the plan. The Royal Hospital at Kilmainham had indeed been recently erected, as the arms of the second Duke of Ormonde over the main door testify. This building, which a vague and probably false tradition in Dublin attributes to Wren, must have produced no small impression by its splendour. It was planned exactly as a college, with the hall and chapel in directum, forming one side of a quadrangle, and surmounted by a belfry. Such is the plan of many colleges at Oxford. And such was still the plan of Chapel and Hall in Trinity College when the eighteenth century opened, and when larger ideas suggested themselves with the increase of wealth and the disappearance of danger from war or tumult. Building had never ceased in the College since the Act of Settlement secured the great College estates in the North and West. Seele had worked hard to restore and enlarge the buildings, dilapidated through age and poverty; Marsh and Huntingdon had built a new Chapel and Hall on the site of the present Campanile, but excessively plain and ugly; even Pratt proposed the building of a new belfry over the Hall, a plan which was carried out thirty years after his resignation. The Chapel is compared by a visitor to a Welsh church. The old tower at the north side of the College, which had lasted from the days of All Hallowes’ Abbey, was restored by Seele, who evidently strove to save this relic of the past. The Front Square was being rebuilt, when the dangerous interlude of James II.’s occupation beggared the College for a moment, after which the houses of the Library Square, which still stand there, were taken in hand. Perfectly plain they were, but solid, and have stood the wear and tear of nearly 200 years, not to speak of the improving fury of occasional innovators, who, even in our day, have threatened them with destruction.[75] They have been disfigured, as the Royal Hospital has been, with ugly grey plaster. If the original red bricks were uncovered, and a tile roof set upon them, the public would presently find out that they were picturesque. At all events, the west side, which was taken down in this century, was a better and more suitable building than those erected (“Botany Bay”) by way of compensation.
The bold undertaking of building the present great Library, without possessing books enough to fill more than a corner of it, must have been Baldwin’s idea. It was no doubt he who hit upon the idea of soliciting the Irish Parliament for grants, although the College was rapidly increasing in wealth. £15,000 was obtained in this way between 1712 and 1724, when the building was finished. The total cost is said to have been only £17,000! Dr. Stubbs deserves the credit of discovering the name of the architect, which was long forgotten, and which is not mentioned, I believe, in the College Register. He was Mr. Thomas Burgh, in charge of the fortifications of King William III. If the Royal Barracks, lately abandoned, were also his work, they offer a strange contrast to his plan for the Library. What his old Custom House in Essex Street was like I do not know.[76] Neither do I know upon what authority Dr. Stubbs adds another detail, that the two small staircases inside the west door, which lead to the gallery, were transferred from the older library, where Bishop Jones had set them up in 1651. If so, these staircases are the oldest piece of woodwork in the College, unless it be the pulpit used for grace in the present Dining Hall, which bears evidences of being equally old. The further history of this Library, which was rapidly enriched by many valuable bequests, forms the subject of another chapter.
The next improvement seems to have been the laying out and planting of the College Park, beyond a closed quadrangle behind the present Library Square, in which the students had their recreations. The walled-in court was probably thought sufficient, and most assuredly, until the whole College Park was enclosed, the unfortunate students would by no means have been allowed to wander through it. The lodge, built in 1722 for a porter, at the north-east end, seems to imply that the fencing was then in process.[77]
These improvements were followed rapidly by the building of a new Dining Hall, commenced in 1740. A bequest of £1,000 seems to have been the only help required, and in 1745 it was even adorned with some of the portraits which still survive. But in 1758 this Hall was so unsafe that it was taken down, and after dismissing the College bricklayer for his work,[78] the present Hall was set up on the same site, and apparently without change of plan. It must be added, in extenuation of the bricklayer’s conduct, that the ground in that part of the College affords very insecure foundations, as we know from recent experiences. The present building has many great cracks in it, and the new rooms just added have had their foundations sunk to a great depth.[79] What is, however, more interesting as history, is to note that the style of this Hall, not finished till after 1760, is rather the plain and panelled building of the preceding generation. The Theatre (Examination Hall) is decorated in a very different, but not, perhaps, a better style.
THE OLD CLOCK TOWER.
While this work was going on, bequests of £1,000 were left to build an ornamental front and tower at the west end of the old Hall; and the well-known architect, Cassels, did so, close to, but a little west of, the site of the present belfry, in 1745. In this the present great bell, cast at Gloucester in 1742, was hung.[80] The aspect of the court, therefore, upon entering the gate, was that of a small square, closed towards the east with a building much nearer than the present belfry. The centre of this east range had the ornamental front and belfry of Cassels’ design, which, according to the extant plan, must always have been ugly, and looks very top-heavy.[81] The north and south sides of this Front Square (built 1685) were of inferior character; while the small quadrangle beyond, on the south side, including the Provost’s lodging, was still the original structure of Queen Elizabeth’s time. The bell tower was taken down as unsafe, and the Hall removed, at the close of the century. We see, therefore, that in this great building period there were many serious mistakes made. There was so much work of the kind going on all through the city, that there must have been a scarcity of competent artisans, and much hurry. The buildings which remain are indeed solid and well finished; but when we attribute these characteristics to all the Dublin buildings of that date, we forget that their bad work has long since perished—what was done well and carefully is all that has remained. While Cassels was building his unsound tower, he erected another pretty building according to a bequest of Bishop Stearne—the Printing-House, from which issued in 1741 an edition of seven dialogues of Plato, in a good though much-contracted type (which is still preserved in the office), and on good paper, but disfigured by a portentous list of errata. The book is now rare, and in request among bibliographers. A few years later, neat editions of Latin Classics issued from the same press.
This architectural activity, based upon liberal but insufficient bequests, somewhat excuses the systematic begging petitions with which the College approached the Irish Parliament for the rebuilding of the Front Square, Theatre, and Chapel, petitions which that Parliament seemed never tired of granting, and yet never able to satisfy. If the taste for fine building and the Parliament in College Green had not both expired with the end of the century, Trinity College would now be the most splendidly housed College in the world. Even as it is, intelligent visitors cannot but be struck with the massive and dignified character of its buildings. Queen Anne and George I. had already granted (in three sums) £15,000 for the Library. George II. granted £45,000 for the present Front Square and Examination Hall. George III., besides the relief of £70 yearly in pavement-tax, granted (in 1787) £3,000, in response to a petition for £12,000. So that, in all, the country granted the College at least £60,000 for building during the eighteenth century.[82] It is set forth in these various petitions that the beauty of the metropolis is one of the objects to be attained, as well as the health of the students, and accommodation for increasing numbers.[83] There was a curious hesitation about the plan of the west front. A central dome and two cupolas at the north and south ends were designed; the south cupola was actually finished. Anyone who enters the present gateway will see clearly that it is designed to sustain a dome. But this dome was never built; the southern cupola was even taken down in 1758, and the front left as it now stands.[84]
These buildings are still far the best and most comfortable in the College. All the bedrooms have fire-places, and even the inner walls are nearly three feet thick. The rooms in the towers and beside the gate are very spacious; and as we may presume that the streets in front of the College were not so noisy as they now are, were evidently intended as residences for Fellows, and were occupied by them exclusively till the rise of the various societies, to which they have afforded excellent reading and committee rooms. Thus they remain to the present day a noble and practical monument of the enterprise shown by the College and the Irish Parliament in the eighteenth century. It is now no longer the city only, but the country which is interested in the College. Constant private bequests added to the public liberalities no small increments; and so far as material prosperity was concerned, the history of the College during the century is one of continued growth in popularity and importance.
When we turn to the internal history, the estimate afforded us by the facts recorded is by no means so satisfactory. As has been already told, the Jacobite spirit at the opening of the century, and the violent efforts of Provost Baldwin to subdue it, produced the insubordination which usually accompanies tyrannical conduct among young men of spirit living in a free country. Dignified as the Provost affected to be, he was exposed to personal insults more than once, not only from Fellows, but from students. Some facts have been collected by Dr. Stubbs, from whose work I quote the following:—
During the reigns of Queen Anne and of the first two Georges, the annals of the College show that the Society suffered from much insubordination on the part of certain of the Students. This partly arose from laxity of discipline, and from the influence of some disorderly and violent Students, and partly from political causes which were connected with the party feelings which prevailed [as at Oxford] with regard to the Revolution and the Hanoverian Succession. It is quite clear that the great majority of the Fellows, especially of the Senior Fellows, were loyal to Queen Anne and to the House of Hanover. Yet it could not be expected that an unanimity of views should prevail among the Students. There appears to have been a small, but determined, body among them warmly attached to the fortunes of James the Second and his family, while the governing body of the College resolutely determined to suppress all manifestations of disloyalty to the reigning Sovereign. The earliest instance of this is a case which occurred in 1708. One Edward Forbes, on the same day on which he was admitted to the M.A. degree (July 12), took occasion to make a Latin speech, in which he asserted that the Queen had no greater right to sit on the throne than her predecessor had—that the title of each Sovereign eodem nititur fundamento. This speech is said to have been made at the Commencement supper. Forbes’ words, having been repeated to the authorities, gave great offence to the loyal feelings of the heads of the College, and to the leading members of the University, and the orator was consequently expelled from the College, and suspended from his degrees by the act of the Provost and Senior Fellows. On the 2nd of the following month, at a meeting of the Vice-Chancellor, Masters, and Doctors of the University, Forbes was deprived of his degrees, and degraded from his University rights; on the same occasion a declaration of loyalty was put forward by the leading members of the University Senate, and signed by the Vice-Chancellor, the Archbishop of Dublin, and the Provost. This document, with the names of the signatories, is preserved in the College Library. [Cf. Appendix xxxiv. of Dr. Stubbs’ work.]
A strong party of Graduates was dissatisfied with the action of the Provost and Senior Fellows in the case of Forbes, partly from political reasons, and partly, perhaps, from a feeling that the punishment awarded was more severe than the circumstances of the case required. There can be no doubt that the sentiments of the members of the Board agreed very closely with those of the Whig party. We learn, however, from Dr. Edward Synge, afterwards Archbishop of Tuam, that Forbes had a party of sympathisers in the University. He says in his pamphlet, which he wrote vindicating his well-known sermon on Toleration, preached in 1711:—
I remember particularly the constant efforts made in the University of Dublin (by persons without doors against the judgment of the Provost and Senior Fellows, who did all they could to oppose them, and, thank God, prevailed), at every Commencement for several years, to procure a repeal of the sentence against Forbes, and a rasure (namely, from the Register of the University) of those wicked words, eodem nititur fundamento, which placed the title of the late Queen on the same foot with that of her glorious predecessor.
There was still a small, but troublesome, party among the Students who agreed with Forbes in his political opinions, for we find from the College Register, under the date August 17, 1710, that Thomas Harvey, John Graffan, and William Vinicomes, were proved to have been intoxicated in the College, and to have crossed over the College walls into the city, and Harvey was convicted of inflicting an indignity on the memory of King William, by wrenching the baton out of the hand of his equestrian statue erected in College Green in 1701. The other two aided and abetted him in the act. They were all three expelled by the Board.
The heads of the College, as well as the leading Doctors and Masters, found it necessary to clear the character of the College from the charges of disloyalty to Queen Anne which were persistently brought against it. Accordingly, we find in the records of the proceedings of the Provost and Senior Fellows, 14th July, 1712, that the Vice-Chancellor having signified that an address be presented to her Majesty from the congregation in the Regent Houses, leave was given that such an address be brought in.
On the 8th of February, 171 3 4 , Theodore Barlow was expelled for drinking in the rooms of one of the Scholars to the memory of the horse from which King William was thrown, to the great danger of his life, and also to the health of the Pretender, and for denouncing with a curse the Hanoverian Succession. The heads of the College still deemed it necessary to set forth their loyalty in the strongest terms, for the decree of expulsion of Barlow runs as follows. The words are evidently those of the Vice-Provost, Dr. Baldwin:—
“Visum est igitur Vice-Præposito et Sociis Senioribus, quibus imprimis cara est Wilhelmi Regis Memoria, qui ex animorum suorum sententia juraverunt Annæ Serenissimæe Reginæ nostræ dignitatem et indubitatum Imperii titulum necnon successionem in Illustrissimâ domo Hanoveriensi per leges stabilitam pro virili defendere et conservare.”
They had still to combat the hostile spirit of a portion of the University, who had now a new Vice-Chancellor, Dr. John Vesey [?], Archbishop of Tuam, a man at that time of the age of seventy-seven; and on the day after Barlow’s expulsion, at the Shrovetide Commencements, several Students were prepared to take their degrees; but some of the Graduates and non-resident Masters of Arts having caused a motion to be made to the Vice-Chancellor that the sentence of Forbes’ degradation should be read before any public business should be proceeded with, the Archbishop was in favour of having this done; but the Vice-Provost, Baldwin, believing that this was for the purpose of having a resolution passed repealing the sentence on Forbes, and relying on the College regulation that no grace could be presented to the Senate of the University without the consent of the Board, negatived the motion. The Vice-Provost’s negative was not allowed by the Vice-Chancellor, whereupon Baldwin withdrew from the Regent House into the Provost’s house, followed by the rest of the Senior Fellows, the Junior Proctor, and the Beadle. Then the Vice-Chancellor and Masters sent to them by two of the Doctors of Divinity the following message:—
“The Proctors, Registrar, and Beadle are cited and required to repair to the Regent House, under pain of contempt.”
To which message the Vice-Provost and Senior Fellows sent the following reply:—
“The Proctors, Registrar, and Beadle, having communicated to the Vice-Provost and Senior Fellows the message sent to them by the Reverend Doctors Hamilton and Gourney, with all humility offer their opinion that they hold that without the consent of the Vice-Provost and Senior Fellows nothing can be safely done in this matter. And, moreover, the Vice-Provost and Senior Fellows notify that they, with their above-named officers, will return without further delay, if the Vice-Chancellor will proceed to confer degrees, and to transact the other business to which the Vice-Provost shall have consented. Otherwise they must humbly beg to be excused, being unwilling to do anything contrary to the Charter of Foundation, and the Laws and Customs of the University.”
Upon receiving this reply, the Vice-Chancellor adjourned the Commencement to the 11th of February.
A final outburst of political feeling took place in 1715. On the 8th of April in that year, a Student named Nathaniel Crump was expelled for saying that Oliver Cromwell was to be preferred to Charles I.; and five of the Students were publicly admonished for breaking out of the College at night, and attacking the house of one of the citizens. On the 31st of May, a Master of Arts, a Bachelor of Arts, and an Undergraduate, were publicly admonished for reading a scandalous pamphlet reflecting on the King, under the name of “Nero Secundus;” and a notice was placed upon the gates of the College denouncing this pamphlet, and threatening the expulsion of all Students who should read it or make a copy of it. The examinations for Scholarships and Fellowship proceeded as usual, and on Saturday, the 11th of June, two days before the election, an order came from the Lords Justices to the Provost and Senior Fellows forbidding the election, based upon a King’s Letter of the 6th of June, and stating as the grounds of this prohibition the several disputes and tumults in Trinity College, which disturbed the Students, and prevented them from studying for these examinations. The elections, consequently, were not held, although there was [were] one Fellowship and eleven Scholarships vacant.
On the 27th of June a Master of Arts was expelled for making a copy of the pamphlet “Nero Secundus,” and two Bachelors of Arts were expelled for using language disrespectful to the King; and on the 3rd of August two more of the Students were expelled on a like charge. On the 12th of July the Provost and Senior Fellows petitioned King George I. with respect to the above-mentioned prohibition. They denied that there were any disputes or tumults in the College which prevented the Students for preparing for their several examinations, and stated that the number of candidates for Fellowships was greater than usual, and the answering entirely satisfactory. They stated, moreover, than none of the candidates for the vacant Fellowship or Scholarships were either accused or suspected of any crime; but they had on all proper occasions expressed dutiful zeal to the King’s person and Government. They asked permission to hold the election. Mr. Elwood and Mr. Howard were sent to London to present this petition to the King.
On the 16th of February, 171 5 6 , the Prince of Wales was elected Chancellor, on the attainder of the Duke of Ormonde, and the Provost and Dr. Howard were sent to London to present to his Royal Highness the formal instrument of appointment.
On the 28th of April a letter was received from the Lords Justices, enclosing a copy of a letter from the King, removing the prohibition to the election of Fellows and Scholars, and the statutable examinations were held in the usual manner. On Trinity Monday one Fellow and thirty-four Scholars were elected.
The following extracts from the MS. letters of Archbishop King in the College Library will throw some light upon these proceedings:—
June 4, 1715. To Mr. Delafoy.—“The business of the College makes the greatest noise. Ten years ago I saw very well what was doing there, and used all means in my power to prevent it; but the strain was too strong for me, as you very well know, and ’twill be necessary to use some effectual means to purge that fountain, which otherwise may corrupt the whole kingdom. Their Visitors are only the Chancellor and I. We ought to visit once in three years, but I could never prevail on their Chancellor to join with me, though I often proposed it;[85] nor is there any hope that I shall be able to do any good whilst I am under such circumstances. I take the Chancellor to be for life, and this makes an impossibility. I believe the Parliament when it sits will be inclined to look into this matter.”
June 21, 1715.—“The College readily submitted to his Majesty’s order to forbear their elections, and I hope will acquit themselves much better than the University of Oxford has done by their programme.”
July 7, 1715. To Mr. Addison.—“The business of the College gives a great deal of trouble to every honest man, and a peculiar pain to me. ’Tis plain there’s a nest of Jacobites in it: one was convicted last Term; two are run away; and I believe bills are found against one or two more. But we can’t as yet reach the fountains of the corruption; but I assure you no diligence is wanting, and everybody looks on it to be of the last consequence to purge the fountain of education. I believe next Parliament will look into the matter.”
In addition to political feeling, there appear to have been from the beginning of the eighteenth century a few very disorderly Students in the College, who were always giving trouble to the authorities.
During the Provostship of George Browne, one of the worst riots took place in the College, fortunately unattended at the time by loss of life. [The Provost died of its effects!] College discipline had become disorganised in the unsettled period which succeeded the battle of the Boyne, and the Provost and Senior Fellows resolved to subdue the disorderly spirit which had manifested itself in the College. They determined to admonish publicly three or four of the Students who had been particularly disorderly, and the heads of the College proceeded in a body to the Hall for that purpose. A few determined Students advanced resolutely, tore the Admonition paper out of the hands of the Dean, and turned the Provost out of the Hall. It was probably on this occasion that Provost George Browne received the blow which has been mentioned in a previous page. A later instance of similar insubordination occurred about thirty years afterwards, when the Provost and Senior Fellows proceeded to the Hall for the like purpose of punishing some turbulent Students. They were met on their way with unseemly affronts and reproaches. The doors of the Hall were locked against them by the Students, and they were obliged to break open the doors in order to promulgate their sentence.
In 1733 the rooms of one of the Fellows were attacked by six or eight of the Students, and they perpetrated there disgraceful mischief and outrage. The rebellious spirit of some of the Students went so far that, when they were expelled, or rusticated, they refused to leave the College, and the authorities could not put them out without violence. One of the Students so expelled actually assaulted a Senior Fellow in the Hall while the sentence of his expulsion was being read out. These violent proceedings on the part of a few reckless Students were aided by outsiders, who always came into College when riots were expected. Thus the unhappy disorders in the College had become widely known, and were fast bringing the institution to the lowest disrepute.
A contemporary pamphlet complains that while there were in the College from five hundred to six hundred Students between seventeen and twenty-four years of age, there were only twenty Masters to control them. The Scholars objected to the statutable custom of capping the Fellows, and it states that—
When the Board meets to inquire into a violation of the Statutes on the part of the Students, the young gentlemen who are conscious of their guilt assemble in the courts below; they have secured a number of their friends; they are surrounded by a great crowd of their brethren; how many they may have engaged to be of their party is not to be discovered, and they give, perhaps, plain intimations that they will not suffer them to be censured. Trusting in their numbers, they will not suffer any one man to be singled out for an example.... Physical violence is consequently to be expected by the Provost, Senior Fellows, and the Dean proceeding to the Hall to read out censures.
Primate Boulter’s letters throw some light upon the state of discipline in the College at this time. Baldwin, now become Provost, most likely from his known devotion to the Whig party and the Hanoverian Succession, and his efforts to subdue the Jacobite faction in College, was a man of a very arbitrary and determined character. He appears to have used the full authority which the Statutes gave him, and frequently summoned the two Deans, and removed from the College books the names of disorderly Students without consulting the Board. Some of the Senior Fellows, notably Dr. Delany, a strong Tory, whose politics were shared by his friend and colleague, Dr. Helsham, were opposed to these arbitrary proceedings, and took measures in London to bring the matter before the Council, in order to have the Provost’s statutable power in these matters curtailed. We learn from Boulter’s letters to the Duke of Newcastle, that early in 1725—
Two Undergraduates of the College, one of them a Scholar, had company at their chambers till about an hour after the keys of the College were carried, according to custom, to the Provost. When their company was willing to go, upon finding the College gates shut, and being told the keys were carried to the Provost, the Scholars went to the Provost’s lodgings, and knocked there in an outrageous manner. Upon the Provost’s man coming to the door to see what was the matter, they told him they came for the keys to let out their friends, and would have them, or they would break open the gates. He assured them the keys were carried to his master, and that he durst not awake him to get them, and then the man withdrew. Upon their coming again to knock with great violence at the Provost’s door, he was forced to rise, and came down and told them they should not have the keys, and bid his man and the porter take notice who they were. The next day he called the two Deans to his assistance, as their Statutes require, and sent for the lads to his lodgings. The Scholar of the house came, but not the other. To him they proposed his making a submission for his fault in the Hall, and being publicly admonished there. This he made a difficulty in doing; and upon their proceeding to the Hall, when he came out of the lodgings he put on his hat before the Provost and walked off. The Provost and Deans went on to the Hall, and after waiting there some time to see whether he would come and submit, they expelled them both.
The Scholar’s name was Annesley, a relation of Lord Anglesea, and through his influence with the Lord Lieutenant (Lord Carteret) and the Visitors [and upon his apologising] he was restored.... We find that he took the B.A. degree in 1726, and that of M.A. in 1729.
We are told in a pamphlet, supposed to have been written by Dr. Madden, that one of the Students, after a long course of neglect of duties, as well as for a notorious insult [committed] upon the Junior Dean, was publicly admonished. In order to resent this punishment, ten or twelve of the Students behaved themselves in a most outrageous manner; they stoned the Dean out of the Hall, breaking into his rooms, and destroying everything in them. They continued to ravage other parts of the College until the middle of the night, evidently endangering the life of the person who was the object of their resentment. Dr. Madden adds that this was done “in a time of great lenity of discipline—perhaps too much so.” “The Board offered considerable rewards for the discovery of the perpetrators of these riotous proceedings; the Students retorted by offering higher rewards to anyone who would bring in the informer, dead or alive. A threatening letter was sent to the Provost. Strangers from town, as was usually the case, came into the College to assist in the pillage. One of these attempted to set fire to the College gates; and had not some of the well-disposed Students prevented this, they would have laid the whole College in ashes, as the flames would have caught hold of the ancient buildings, extravagantly timbered after the old manner, and would have reached the new buildings [the Library Square], and the flames could not then have been extinguished.”
One of the Junior Fellows, named Edward Ford, who had been elected in 1730, had rendered himself particularly obnoxious to the Students. He was not Junior Dean; but he appears to have been an obstinate and ill-judging man, who took upon himself to restrain the Students in an imprudent manner. They resented this interference. He had been often insulted by them, and had received a threatening letter. This caused him much dejection of spirits; and as his rooms had suffered in the previous tumult, he kept loaded arms always by his side. One night he was asleep in his rooms (No. 25), over a passage which then led from the Library Square into the playground (a walled-in enclosure which at that time occupied the site of the present New Square). A loaded gun lay by his bedside. Some of the Students threw stones against his windows, which was the usual way in which they annoyed the College authorities. Ford rose from his bed and fired upon them from his window, which faced the playground. Determined to retaliate, the band of Students rushed to their chambers, seized the fire-arms, which they had persisted in keeping (although such had been forbidden, under pain of expulsion, by a decree of the Board, March 24, 1730), and they ran back to the playground. In the meanwhile one of the Scholars, who resided in the same house, seeing the danger in which Ford was placed, and knowing the character of the man, managed to get into his bedroom, and strongly urged him to remain in bed. Ford, with his characteristic obstinacy, would not listen to this advice, but went to the window in his nightdress, when the Students seeing him, fired at the window, and wounded him mortally. Poor Ford lingered in great agony for about two hours before he died. The Board immediately met and investigated the circumstances of the murder, and expelled Mr. Cotter, Mr. Crosby, Boyle, Scholes, and Davis, as being the authors of or participators in Mr. Ford’s murder. The Board employed Mr. Jones, an attorney, to prosecute them for murder at the Commission Court, at which trial, however, they were acquitted.
We learn from contemporary pamphlets that the feeling among the upper classes in Dublin was greatly excited about this affair. Many, especially ladies, strongly took the part of the young men—
The Fellows were the subjects of common obloquy; every little indiscretion of their former lives was ripped up; everything they said or did had a wrong turn given to it. Numberless false stories about them were spread throughout the kingdom. Some of them were publicly affronted in the Courts of Law by one of his Majesty’s servants for appearing to do the common offices of every honest man. One noble Lord declared that a Fellow’s blood did not deserve an inquisition which might detain a man one day from his ordinary business. However, the Judges (except one) all spoke loudly in favour of the College, and specially the Chief Baron.
Primate Boulter is said to have often appeared astonished when he heard gentlemen talk as if they were determined to destroy the Irish seat of learning. It is added that “many did this for the purpose of injuring religion.” No doubt the true explanation of the animosity to the College is to be sought in the strong political feelings which prevailed at the time. The Fellows were mainly Whigs, and their opponents belonged to the Tory party.
Early in March, 173 4 5 , the Visitors cited the Provost, Fellows, and Scholars to appear at a Visitation on the 20th of that month. Primate Boulter wrote to the Duke of Dorset that—
There have been such difficulties started from the College, and so much listened to by their Vice-Chancellor, the Bishop of Clogher [Dr. Stearne], that I fear the Visitation will not prove such as will answer expectation. I have taken all opportunities of desiring the Fellows and their friends to avoid all needless disputes and oppositions for fear of their falling into the hands of worse Visitors next Session of Parliament. I hope and fear the best; but things do not promise very well.
The above cited pamphlet states that “at the late inquiry into the condition of the College, there could not be discovered more than two or three insignificant points in which the Statutes were deviated from by the Fellows.”
To this account we should add that Swift, who disliked and despised Baldwin, took a great interest in the Visitation of 1734, and went down to give his opinion concerning the management of the College, which he thought very bad. He also wrote to the Duke of Dorset on the subject (Jan. 14, 1735). But the fact added by Dr. Stubbs, that after the affair of Ford we hear no more of riots or of insubordination, shows that the mischief was not deep-seated, but caused by some small knot of rowdies. It does not appear that they were led by young men of the higher classes, for though many frequented the College at that time, no names of prominence (save an Annesley) are mentioned in connection with any of the outrages. Such disorders have always been rather the fault of the Governors than of the students of the College. The course of Irish history is so uniform, the temper of the various classes in the nation is so unchanged (as every student of Irish history knows), that I do not believe the discipline which is so easily maintained now in Trinity College was ever seriously endangered, and the very fact that so many brilliant and learned men were being educated there at that period shows that its intellectual life was not impaired. The particular form of the studies pursued cannot be easily estimated. An examination of the Laudian Statutes shows that the authorities were not allowed in any way to change the subjects laid down for the course in 1637. The whole body of the teaching, as already explained, was oral, and each student reproduced in essays or disputations what he had been taught by his tutor during the week. Hence it was that such short books as those written by Dudley Loftus or Narcissus Marsh, though used by lecturers, were not formally proposed to the students. Locke’s Essay, as we know, was introduced into the post-graduate studies by the influence of Ashe and Molyneux before 1700, and has influenced the spirit of the University ever since; but this, too, was outside the prescribed course. It was not till 1760 that, by a special statute, the Provost and Board were permitted to make such changes in the course as they thought expedient. This permission, conceded long after it was needed and indeed assumed,[86] marks an epoch in the history of the College. But it belongs to the reign, not of Baldwin, but of his enlightened and brilliant successor, Andrews.
