FOOTNOTES:
[66] A mistake for Loftus, the first Provost. This full-length portrait is now in the Provost’s House. What has become of the second picture is uncertain. The tomb, alas, is now a mere ruin, to be described in another chapter.
[67] This shows how long the project was discussed. The money was not given till ten years later.
[68] The only mention of this house, which was replaced by the present mansion 70 years later.
[69] Dr. Anthony Dopping.
[70] This character, intended to enliven the solemnity of public acts, appears to have been borrowed from the precedent of Oxford. In a curious book intitled Terræ Filius (London, 1726), which consists of a series of satires upon that University, the anonymous author says—“It has, till of late, been a custom, from time immemorial, for one of our family to mount the Rostrum at Oxford at certain seasons [during the Acts of the Term], and divert an innumerable crowd of spectators, who flocked to hear him from all parts, with a merry oration, interspersed with secret history, raillery, and sarcasm.... Several indignities having been offered to the grave fathers of the University, they said to one another—‘Gentlemen, these are no jests; if we suffer this, we shall become the sport of freshmen and servitors. Let us expel him.’ And, accordingly, Terræ Filius was expelled during almost every Act.” And again (p. xi.)—“Though it has, of late years, been thought expedient to lay aside the solemnity of a Publick Act, and it is very uncertain when Terræ Filius will be able to regain his antient privileges.”
There is a frontispiece to the book, signed W. Hogarth, which represents an enraged Don tearing in pieces the libel of the Terræ Filius, who is in the middle of an excited crowd of collegians and ladies. The author speaks of the seditious spirit of Oxford in the very way that the spirit of Dublin is censured at the same time; and just as the Terræ Filius of Oxford had been censured and persecuted when his jests became libellous, so in Swift’s day, just before the Centenary time, one Jones, an intimate of Swift’s, had been deprived of his degrees for a satire, which Barrett has published as possibly composed by Swift to aid his friend.—Cf. Barrett’s Early Life of Swift (London, 1808).
The heads at Oxford, holding public acts in 1712, stopt the mouth of the Terræ Filius (who is called a statutable orator at this solemnity), having intelligence that he designed to utter something in derogation of the Reverend Mr. Vice-Chancellor, op. cit. p. 100. This is probably the affair spoken of in J. C. Jeaffreson’s Annals of Oxford, ii. 224, but referred to the year 1713. Mr. Jeaffreson has a whole chapter on the subject.
[71] I owe to the kindness of Mr. J. R. Garstin my knowledge of this rare tract, of which the title-page is reproduced on [page 52]; the bidding prayer is given on [page 10]. A passage which smacks of the 17th century is as follows. The preacher is arguing that Learning can amply satisfy all the aspirations and desires of human nature. He concludes—“Lastly, what Raptures can the Voluptuous man fancy, to which those of Learning and Knowledge are not equal? If he can relish nothing but the pleasures of his Senses, Natural Philosophy exposes the beautiful bosome of the Universe, admits him into Nature’s garden, &c.”
[72] The appointment of this Browne is the subject of various curious letters preserved in the Ormonde MSS. at Kilkenny Castle (Vol. 156). I give the first completely, and extracts from the others. They might have been written yesterday.
9644 Trinity College, Dub., May 16, ’99.
May it Please Your Grace,
Our Provost in appearance is past recovery, yet I had not so soon made any application to succeed him, but that others have been beforehand with me by another Interest.
Tho’ I have reason to hope for a recommendation of me by Government, yet I am not willing to use any endeavours without your Grace’s knowledge and concurrence. I am sensible it is a place of great trust and importance to the whole kingdom, and if your Grace upon inquiry shall find me qualified to discharge it, I do most humbly beg your Grace’s favour in recommending me to His Majesty for it.—That God may continue, &c., &c., Your humble & obed.
Peter Browne.
9645. The Provost of this College being now near his end, which I am heartily sorry for, I presume amongst the many addresses, &c. I beg to recommend the Restoring the same Person to it whom your Grace’s grandfather himself put in, I mean Dr. Huntington, who upon the Dispersion here was as a Father to all that then went over, and provided so well for some of them when they were in England, that 2 of your Bps., viz., Dr. Ashe and Dr. Smith, owe their Preferments in a manner entirely to him, for it was he who laid the foundation of them, tho’ he is now entirely neglected.
This unfortunate Person, for so I must needs call him, except your Gce becomes his Patron, left the College upon the Revolution, or was rather by Providence sent over to provide for those who knew not what to do for themselves. Then he married, &c., but is still capable of the Place by the King’s Dispensation, as Dr. Seele was, at the Restoration, and obtained it in that way. And because this Gentleman has already showed himself one of the most usefull men in that place, and the likelyhood to prove the most serviceable to it now it is in its Rubbish, I now take the confidence, who was employed by the late Duke, my master, to bring him over, &c.
Will. [Moreton, Bp. of] Kildare.
[Extracts.] Dub. 6 June, 1699.
9648. The Provost of the Coll. being dead on Sunday night, it will import your Gce as Chancellor to interpose, &c. I know Mr. Peter Browne, who is an eminent preacher & Senior Fellow, &c., will be recommended, &c., &c.
[Sir] Richard Cox.
9649. Ardhaccan, June 7th.
Our excellent Provost being dead, &c., that you will be pleased to recommend Dr. Owen Lloyd, who is our Div. Prof., or Dr. John Hall, who is Vice-Provost, to his Majesty, &c., &c.
I hear the Lords Justices have recommended one Mr. Peter Browne, who is a Sr Fellow, & has a parish in the City of Dublin, &c., &c.
Nor is it my opinion alone, but that of the Bp. of Clogher (Ashe), who was formerly Provost, & has now earnestly importuned me to address your G. & the Arbp. of Cant. in Dr. Lloyd’s or Dr. Hall’s behalfe, and to Pray your Grce that Mr. Peter Browne, who is much their junior, may not have it, &c., &c. I have sent the Bp.’s letter to His Gce of Cant., in which the late Provost’s opinion of Mr. Browne’s unfitness for the place is fully declared.
Rich. Meath.
[73] To him and to Swift in this generation, to Goldsmith, Sheridan, and Burke in the next, are due in great part the development of modern English prose. In this, as in so many other ways, the Anglo-Irish have been the masters of the English.
[74] I may recall to the reader the dignified protest of the first Duke of Ormonde, against this very practice, in the interests of the University, above, [p. 33].
[75] I remember being told by the late Provost to formulate my protest as soon as possible, for that the demolition of these buildings would be commenced within a fortnight. My argument in their favour was, that while they were perfectly sound, they were also historical evidences of the antiquity of the College, and of its condition in 1700. I remember adding that it might be a very long fortnight before the work of destruction began.
[76] Cf. Stubbs, p. 177.
[77] The petition to Parliament in 1787 states “that from an attention to the health and accommodation of their students, petitioners have expended considerable sums of money in the purchase of ground for the enlargement of their park, the enclosing and finishing of which will be attended with considerable expense” (Taylor, p. 95). The fact here officially stated, that the College increased its holding of land in Dublin by purchase during the eighteenth century, is very interesting, and is probably to be explained by searching the Register.
[78] This seems to me one of the boldest acts of Baldwin. We should have expected to find the incompetent workman either employed to repeat his work on the new Hall, or at least pensioned by the Board.
[79] The east end subsided in the present century, and was then rebuilt, in the memory of the present Vice-Provost, from whom I have learned the fact.
[80] The Dublin papers of June, 1744, speak with enthusiasm of the arrival of this great bell, “on which the mere import duty was £20, and which all lovers of harmony allow to be the largest, finest, and sweetest-toned bell in the kingdom. It was cast by the famous Rudhall of Gloucester.”
[81] The picture given by Dr. Stubbs was possibly never realised. There are several extant views of the College subsequent to 1745 and up to 1797, which all represent the belfry as a dome without the lantern or the vane, “consisting of a harp and crown, copper gilt” (Stubbs, p. 187). A rare aquatint of 1784 does, however, give the vane, with other details which are highly improbable. It was a habit to print architects’ drawings of buildings in process of completion, as may be seen in Poole and Cash’s views, in which many plates give the intentions of the architect, which were never carried out.
[82] Mr. Taylor, in his history, has given all the petitions and replies from the Journals of the House of Commons. The following is the summary:—Queen Anne and George I. for Library—in 1709, £5,000; 1717, £5,000; 1721, £5,000. George II. for Parliament Square—1751, £5,000; 1753, £20,000; 1755, £5,000 (£20,000 asked for in the petition): 1757, £5,000; 1759, £10,000. George III., in 1787, £3,000. Between the last two dates considerable sums were obtained from the Board of Erasmus Smith.
[83] While the impossibility of defraying these expenses without a building fund is strongly urged in the various petitions, another set of documents, the King’s Letters, issued for the increase of salaries of Provost, Fellows, and other officers in 1758, 1759, 1761, and subsequently, state as the reason the great increase in the revenues of the College, which justify such changes. No one seems to have thought of comparing these statements with the begging petitions.
[84] No reasons are assigned by Dr. Stubbs, who reports these facts apparently from the Register; but we may infer that the large square Hall over the gate was thought necessary for a Regent House, or Hall for the disputations of the Masters, in place of the older room, which disappeared with the demolishing of decayed buildings; and by this title we know that that Hall was originally known. This alteration of plan would make a dome impossible. As soon as the central dome was abandoned, it would follow that the cupolas, one of which had been already finished, must also be abandoned.
[85] This cannot easily be reconciled with the statement above made (p. 65), that Archbishop Vesey was Vice-Chancellor in the previous year, and in the absence of the Chancellor could act as Visitor.
[86] The facts in Dr. Stubbs’ 10th chapter, especially the classical course of 1736, show that the 15th chapter of the old Statute was liberally interpreted. Indeed Greek and Latin are there prescribed, but the books not specified. In Logic the directions are far more precise. Nor was there any relaxation of the strict directions with regard to Latin Essays and summaries of work, or to Disputations, which certainly lasted till the close of the 18th century.
[CHAPTER IV.]
FROM 1758 TO THE CLOSE OF THE CENTURY.
Dedit ergo eis petitionem ipsorum,
Et misit tenuitatem in animam eorum.
Psalm cvi. 15.
Provost Andrews, a layman, but a Senior Fellow, and one of a distinguished group of lay Fellows then in the College, succeeded less than two years before George III. became king. His Provostship is perhaps the most brilliant in the annals of the College. He was a man of elegant tastes, of large acquaintance, of scholarship quite adequate to his position, and he consequently did more than any of his predecessors or successors to bring the Society over which he presided into contact with the best and greatest throughout Ireland. Even under the stricter and more academic Baldwin, we learn from the Register that a large number of the highest classes in Ireland had begun to frequent the College.[87] We may assume that under Andrews this tendency increased. It was only necessary to prove that the education of Dublin was equal to that of the older Universities, to induce men of property in Ireland to avoid the troubles and anxieties of sending their sons by the roads and boats of those days to Oxford and Cambridge; and thus we find that from the opening of the eighteenth century to the second decade of the nineteenth the great body of the Irish aristocracy was educated in Dublin. It would have been so, even into recent days, if the Senior Fellows of the latter period had thought earnestly about the dignity of the College.
The character of this Provost, according to his contemporaries and the historians of the College, was very different from that of Baldwin. He is indeed accused of good living, a great crime in a College Don, when it includes brilliant society and rich appointments; mere over-eating and drinking incur little censure. But Andrews could speak Latin with fluency and elegance, and we are glad to learn that in his day the Irish pronunciation did not make him incomprehensible in Italy or France. He built and occupied the noble Provost’s House,[88] which still remains one of the mansions that give to Dublin its metropolitan aspect. He entertained handsomely, both in the new Dining Hall and at his own House. He must have been the promoter and founder of the School of Music, which has produced a series of excellent Professors, and created a distinct school of composition, starting from that fortunate accident, a musical Peer—the Earl of Mornington, father of the great Duke of Wellington. The principal Parliamentary grants for building were during the extreme old age of Baldwin, so that I suspect the influence of Andrews, who was then a Senior Fellow, and a member of the Irish House, must have been the chief cause of this sudden liberality; for after the completion of the Library in 1724, there is a pause in the Parliamentary grants till 1751, and again they disappear after 1759, when Andrews became Provost, till 1787. But it is asserted in Duigenan’s pamphlet that the grants of Baldwin’s time were not exhausted during the whole of Andrews’ Provostship. I take it, then, that Andrews had ample funds for the fine buildings erected during his office.[89] Constant increase of the College rents and constant bequests made it possible to rebuild the Dining Hall in his time (1759-61), and no doubt much remained to be done in making the new front, finished in 1759, habitable. There was much hospitality, and good society was encouraged in the College. The greatest ceremony during his time was the installation of the Duke of Bedford as Chancellor, which is thus described by the Registrar:—
Friday, Sept. 9 [1768].—This day his Grace John Duke of Bedford was installed Chancellor of our University.
The Hall had been previously prepared by erecting a platform at the upper end, and a gallery for the musicians at the lower end. The platform was erected 2 feet 6 inches from the floor and railed in. At the back in the middle, under a canopy of green damask, and upon a semicircular step raised six inches above the level of the platform, was placed a chair for the Chancellor, on the right hand a chair for the Vice-Chancellor, and on the left another for the Provost. From these chairs on each side along the back and sides down to the rails were raised seats and forms, and on the right side, advanced before those seats, were placed two chairs of state for the Lord Lieutenant and his Lady. Over the door of the Hall, and eight feet above the floor, was erected the gallery for the musicians, and along the sides of the Hall, between the platform and gallery, were seats raised and forms placed, leaving a passage in the midst seven feet wide. On the right side, next to the platform, part of the seats were enclosed as a box for the reception of such ladies of quality whom the Chancellor should invite. The platform with its steps, the gallery and the seats, were covered with green broadcloth. The passage through the midst of the Hall was covered with carpeting, and the semicircular step under his Grace’s chair ornamented with a rich carpet.
When the Lord Lieutenant and his Lady, the Nobility, the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs of the city, the ladies of quality and fashion, and all who walked not in the procession, had taken their seats in the Hall, the procession moved solemnly from the Regent House, the chamber over the gateway, to the Hall in the following order, according to juniority:—Undergraduates, Bachelors of Arts, candidates for Degrees, Masters of Arts, Bachelors in Music, in Law, in Physic, in Divinity, Doctors in Music, in Law, in Physic, in Divinity, Senior Fellows, Noble Students, Vice-Provost, Beadle with his Mace, Proctors, Chancellor between the Vice-Chancellor on his right and the Provost on his left, Archbishops, Dukes, Earls, Viscounts, Bishops, Barons, &c., &c.
Every gentleman who walked in the procession was habited in the robes of his Order and Degree. The Undergraduates and Bachelors of Arts stopped at the Hall-door, opened to right and left, and after the Nobility entered the Hall according to seniority. The candidates for Degrees, Masters in Arts, and Bachelors in Music, Law, Physic, and Divinity, stopped at the steps of the platform. The Doctors, &c., ascended the platform by four steps. During this procession the musicians played a solemn March composed on the occasion by the Earl of Mornington, Professor of Music.
The music having ceased, the Registrar read the Act of the College constituting his Grace their Chancellor. Upon which the Vice-Chancellor and the Provost, assisted by the Seniors, led his Grace to the canopy and installed him. And the Vice-Chancellor having taken his place on the right, when the Mace and the University Rules were laid at his feet, the Provost, assisted by the Seniors, delivered into his Grace’s hand a printed copy of the College Statutes elegantly bound, promising for himself and the University all due and statutable obedience. His Grace then arising returned them thanks for the honour they had done him in electing him their Chancellor, expressing that it was more pleasing to him, as this mark of the confidence of a Body so distinguished by their learning, virtue, and loyalty, gave him reason to hope that his conduct during his administration was not disagreeable to the people of Ireland in general, whose prosperity and welfare, and particularly the honour and privileges of the University, he would seek every occasion to advance, &c.
The Provost having taken his place on the left, and the Seniors having retired to their seats, after a short pause the Provost rose and addressed the Chancellor and the University in a most elegant Latin oration, in the close of which he addressed himself particularly to the Professor of Music, who thereupon gave the signal to the musicians, and gave copies of the Ode to the Lord Lieutenant and the Chancellor. The Ode was written on the occasion by Mr. Richard Archdale, an Undergraduate, and was set to music by the Professor, the Earl of Mornington.
After the conferring of the Degrees by the Chancellor, the Commencement was closed, and the musicians played the March, as before, and the Procession, as before, attended his Grace to the Provost’s House.
His Grace, with the Nobility, Fellows, Professors, &c., dined in the Eating Hall. There were two chairs placed at the head of the table; the Lord Lieutenant sat on the right hand.
Sunday, Sept. 11.—His Grace the Chancellor was sung into Chapel by the Choir. He sat in the Provost’s stall, the Provost in the Vice-Provost’s; the Vice-Provost, Nobility, and Professors, were seated in the adjoining seats. Two Senior Fellows read the Lessons, the Deans the Communion Service. The Professor of Divinity preached from Proverbs, chap. xv., verse 14. There were two Anthems. The Te Deum and the Jubilate were composed by the Earl of Mornington.
On Tuesday, Sept. 13, the Chancellor, attended by the Provost, Fellows, and Professors, visited the Elaboratory, Anatomy School, Waxworks, &c. In the Natural Philosophy School his Grace was addressed by Mr. Crosbie, a Nobilis, son of Lord Brandon, in English verse.... As his Grace was quitting the Library, the Professor of Oratory addressed him in an English farewell speech, which his Grace was pleased to answer with great politeness.
The reader will remember that the Hall mentioned at the opening of this extract was the old Hall, then entered under the dome which appears in all the views of the College of that epoch. The date of the first edition of the Statutes (August 22, 1768), when compared with this account, also shows that they were first printed for the purpose of this ceremony. The Chancellor’s copy of these Statutes had probably been lost, or never perhaps handed over to the Royal Personages who had recently been Chancellors; and indeed we wonder, with a printing press now over twenty years established, that the work had not yet been issued in print. The difficulty lay in the Laudian Statute, which specially provided that three copies should exist, and implied that no more should be circulated.[90] There is possibly some entry in the Registry which would explain how the Board evaded this obstacle. The printed copy bears opposite the title-page, in print, vera copia, Theaker Wilder, Regr.
It is much to be regretted that the Ode, with Mornington’s music, has disappeared.[91] It is stated by Dr. Stubbs that the Duke of Bedford’s fine portrait by Gainsborough, now in the Provost’s House, was presented upon this occasion. But there is an exactly similar picture in the Dublin Mansion House, which must surely have been presented by Bedford, or acquired by the city, while he was Lord Lieutenant, seven years earlier. The portrait, therefore, in the Provost’s House must be a replica, unless it was presented to Provost Andrews much earlier than the date of the Installation. Our Bursar, in his history, states with cold precision the large amounts spent upon dinners to the Viceroys in these hospitable days. It does not appear that the feast given to the Duke of Bedford was by any means as costly as some of those given in later years.[92] Such are the gossiping details preserved concerning this Provost and his social doings in the College.
It might be easily inferred, were it not stated expressly in the angry controversies with his successor, that the discipline of the College was much relaxed, and many abuses tolerated by this amiable man. The old Statutes regulating studies in the autumn (out of term) had fallen into desuetude; the Chapel was shut up in July, and all business ceased for six weeks. Residence was not enforced at this time, or indeed at other times, in the case of poor scholars, who went as tutors into country houses. Still worse, the marriage of several Fellows, in spite of their solemn oath of celibacy during their tenure, was connived at, and thus a habit tolerated of trifling with solemn obligations, which not only brought great scandal upon the College, but lowered the general dignity and respectability of the Governing Body. Most of them were in debt to the College, and with the expectation of never having payment enforced. It also appears accidentally, from a document printed by Taylor, that the Wide Street Commissioners, making a report to the Irish Parliament in 1799 on the condition of the College property extending from the north precinct to the river, found that the houses and land had, by some great oversight, been let on a long lease (60 years), at a small rent, to the Bishop of Raphoe.[93]
We may assume that the great social successes of Andrews’ Provostship encouraged the Government, on his death, to promote another layman, and lawyer, into the vacant post. It was doubtless argued that, with the increase of wealth and splendour in the College, it must be represented by a public man, a man of the world, and a good speaker. But the new Provost, John Hely Hutchinson, lacked other and not less necessary qualifications which had made Andrews so successful. In the first place he had never been a Fellow, and thus was not only ignorant of the routine of College work, but also of the characters and susceptibilities of the Fellows. It was but natural that such of them as were baulked in their advancement by his appointment, and who thought themselves more worthy to hold it, resented the promotion of a stranger by political influence. Though Hutchinson managed to gain over certain members of the Board, he found others irreconcilable, and he is alleged to have dealt with them in unscrupulous fashion, both by attempted bribery and by open oppression. The moral standard of his profession, and indeed of the official classes throughout Ireland, was very low. Every successful man seems to have feathered his nest by obtaining or creating sinecures, nor was there any limit to the rapacity which accumulated them in the same hands. It was well that Hutchinson did not set himself to plunder the College for his family; the few cases of inferior officers whom he thrust upon the College, which his adversaries have exposed, are mere trifles.
But he was ambitious of political power for his sons; and he certainly strove to make the College a pocket-borough. This attempt brought about him a nest of hornets. The fact was, that bribery or intimidation, which might be used with hardly any risk in constituencies of ordinary electors, was sure to stumble upon some young gentleman of high character and independence among the Fellows or Scholars, and thus be exposed.
On the other hand, the abuses tolerated by Andrews gave the new Provost a great power of intimidation, which he could have used very effectually. Fellows with wives and large families, who had broken their solemn engagement to celibacy, and resided outside the College, contrary to the Statutes, who, moreover, owed to the College large sums of money for the purchase of rooms, which they could not pay, were practically in the Provost’s hands. It is much to be regretted that when a layman, an outsider, and a public man chanced to be set over the Society, he did not take in hand thorough reforms on these all-important points—reforms which could hardly be expected from an old member of the Corporation, promoted after years of acquiescence or participation in the growing laxities of discipline.
But the school in which Hutchinson was educated was even morally worse than that of the culpable Fellows. There must be substantial truth in the constant allegation, proved by two Parliamentary inquiries, that the Provost’s assertions of discipline were not just and uniform, but intended to promote his political power. Both in 1776 and in 1790, when Hutchinson secured the return of his elder and younger sons respectively by a very narrow majority, there were petitions against them on the ground of intimidation and bribery, and the evidence then given is the real ground of the severe judgment which the local historians have pronounced against the Provost. In the former petition his son was unseated; in the latter—remarkable for having Lord Edward Fitzgerald and the future Duke of Wellington among its members—the casting vote of the chairman saved the sitting member. The evidence in both cases is so very similar, that we cannot but wonder at the incaution of the Provost, who was probably saved from a second disgrace only by his personal influence with the Chairman of the Committee. In this latter case, however, Hutchinson disowned altogether the person who acted as go-between, and who made offers to the scholars. He was private tutor to the Provost’s family, but was dismissed, and excluded from the precincts of the College by order of the Visitors.
The case is therefore strong against the Provost, though we should remember that in those days all Parliamentary elections in Ireland were carried on by similar means, and that bribery was only condemned by the law, not by the moral sense of the community.
This public evidence has, however, not weighed in the minds of historians so strongly as the violent pamphlet called Lachrymæ Academicæ, written against the Provost by his bitter personal enemy, Dr. Patrick Duigenan, who as a Junior Fellow was at perpetual variance with his chief, and at last resigned his Fellowship to take a Chair of Law, which was increased in value (with the Provost’s consent) to induce his resignation. This exceedingly violent ex parte statement seems to me chiefly valuable for its allusions to the internal affairs of the College not at issue in the dispute. The tone is scurrilous, and the confident prediction that a few more years of the Provost’s manipulation must ruin the College falsified by the facts. Instead of securing all the posts in the College for partizans of his own, the Provost met with more and more opposition, especially from the Junior Fellows, as years elapsed. In 1775, a scholar whom he had deprived insisted upon a Visitation, in which Primate Robinson, the Vice-Chancellor, decided against the Provost. In 1791, another Vice-Chancellor, Lord Clare, decided against him on the right of negative, which he claimed under the Statutes in every election. The sense of the Statute is plain enough. It ordains that the majority of Provost and Board shall decide elections; but if such majority could not be obtained after two scrutinies—that is to say, if the Senior Fellows had divided their votes among three or more candidates, so that none of them had more than three—then the Provost’s vote, even if it stood alone, shall decide the election. This very reasonable Statute was, however, so worded, that another interpretation was possible, ordaining that even in an absolute majority of votes the Provost’s must be one. Lord Clare decided rightly that the disputed words una cum Præposito, vel eo absente Vice-Præposito, merely meant that the Senior Fellows could not elect without the presence of either of these officers.[94]
This Visitation concludes the long history of the quarrels of the political Provost with his Fellows. He was then an old man, and though he showed considerable vigour in arguing his case, it is evident that the fire of his ambition was burning low, and his combativeness decreasing with the decay of his physical powers. It is a great pity that while a collection of scurrilous tracts—Pranceriana, Lachrymæ Academicæ, and others—were published and widely circulated, and are still quoted against him, his own account of the history of the College, of his own doings, and of the character of his opponents, has remained in MS., and even this MS. is not now in the Library, but in possession of Mr. Charles Todd. It is therefore only known through the few extracts which those writers have made who have had access to this source. The impression produced by these extracts is strongly in Hutchinson’s favour; he speaks with admiration of some of his opponents, and with great calmness of his own political mistakes. Until this important document is thoroughly examined, the case for Provost Hutchinson cannot be considered complete, nor can we determine all the motives of his policy. We can, however, infer from the public acts of his government the following conclusions.
In the first place, he clearly desired to modernise the education of the students, not only by modifying their course of study (of which Dr. Duigenan says he was an incompetent judge), but by making them practise accomplishments quite foreign to old Collegiate discipline. The account of his improvements suggests that he advanced in the direction which Andrews had set for the College, but so rashly as to make his government a parody of that of his predecessor. Having himself called out his man, and fought a duel, he could not possibly interdict the use of arms among the students; and we hear strange and probably exaggerated accounts of the number of students killed or maimed in affairs of honour.[95] Akin to the practice of arms was the practice of horsemanship, which brought upon him some ridicule when he desired to have a riding-school attached to the College. This idea was probably suggested to him by country gentlemen, who thought that their sons should receive a complete training for their after life in the University. The same ideas prompted him to found Chairs of Modern Languages, which have lasted to this day, and which proclaimed the startling novelty that not dead languages only, but the living languages of Europe are part of a liberal education. However late and imperfect the teaching of modern languages at the University may have been, we can here also infer that it was the solicitation of parents of the higher classes which made Hutchinson propose these changes, all of which tended to make the students men of the world.
As regards his own office, he did many things to promote its permanent dignity. He persuaded the Board to give him a grant for enlarging the fine house which his predecessor had built, and this addition is one of its chief features; it is the stately Provost’s study, added at the north end of the main structure. He took care so to lease the Provost’s estate as to preserve its rental undiminished to his successors. The same principles appear in his improvement of the College. With the aid of a grant from the Erasmus Smith’s Board of £2,500, he built the noble Examination Hall, intended for a Theatre or Hall of public Academic performances, at the fortunate moment when our 18th century builders had just reached the zenith of their art. No room in Dublin is more perfect in its proportions, or more rich as well as chaste in its ornamentation. He also persuaded the Senior Fellows, who trembled for their renewal fines, to have the College estates re-valued, and thus added a permanent £5,000 a-year to the property of the Corporation. We are told that he could not carry out this eminently honest and practical reform without guaranteeing each of the persons who sat with him on the Board against loss of income. Not one of them was willing to risk one shilling for the future improvement of the College estate. He showed more questionable taste when he transformed a number of old silver cups into a service of dinner plates, which his enemies said he intended for his own use, and probably for that of his heirs; for he carried them to his suburban residence at Palmerstown [Park], and used them in his entertainments. The service is, however, still safe, and perhaps adds as much to the dignity of College entertainments as would the cups that were melted down. But we grieve to think what splendid old specimens of Caroline or Queen Anne plate have thus been lost.
So far as Hutchinson was a politician—probably accepting the Provostship with the determination to have the University for a pocket-borough, and so to attain a position equal to that of the County magnates—so far his life and conduct are open to severe criticism. In every other respect his 20 years of rule were both brilliant and profitable to the College. He continued the great traditions of his two predecessors, and far surpassed the men who succeeded him for the next 40 years. But whether the opposition of the Fellows was really irreconcilable, or whether he was himself wanting in tact or fairness, the painful result is beyond question, that he lived all his life at war with his subjects.
When his health began to fail in 1793, a full year before his death, intriguing for the succession to his place began in official circles. The Bar, who absorb so many posts outside their profession, began to speak of the Provostship as a political office; and had they succeeded in appointing another lawyer, we should presently have had it put forward as an axiom, that none but a lawyer is fit to hold a post which requires any knowledge of the law. We hear this absurd argument repeated every day with fatal effect. On the other hand, the Senior Fellows, who had considered this great post as their proper prize ever since the necessity of importing scholars from England had passed away, were equally zealous in counteracting these schemes. Four or five times did they send deputations to London to interview Pitt, Dundas, Portland, and perhaps with most effect Edmund Burke and the Marquis of Abercorn, both of whom exerted themselves warmly against the politicians and the lawyers in favour of an academical and clerical appointment. Even Burke himself was spoken of for the office, and then an English Bishop of Cloyne, Bennett, who was deterred by a threatening visit from some of the Fellows.
Meanwhile, the moment for the celebration of the Bi-Centenary of the Foundation had arrived. The Centenary had been held in 1694, the 100th anniversary of the first taking of degrees. The more correct date would have been 1692. But neither date was debated for one moment by the creatures who were thinking of nothing but the loss of a step in their promotion, or the chances of succeeding to a lucrative post. All remembrance of the dignity of the College and its historic position was obscured by these personal anxieties, to which was added, in the minds of better men, a keen sense of the inconvenience of having a stranger and a politician as the head of a place of learning. Had any of the three great Provosts been guiding the councils of the College, this disgraceful omission of so honourable a commemoration would not have been tolerated.
But from this time onward, the College, having conquered in the great struggle concerning Hutchinson’s successor, obtained the practical nomination, and accordingly “the Senior Major of the Regiment,” or the next senior, was regularly promoted. By a curious coincidence, the influence of Primate Boulter’s policy, and the exclusion of Irishmen from Bishoprics, had also passed away, and so we find our Provosts passed on to the Episcopal Bench, leaving no mark upon the College, and taking no interest in ought beyond the decent management of the routine studies of the place. The history from the appointment of Murray to that of Bartholomew Lloyd, in 1837, is probably the least creditable in all the three centuries. No fine buildings were erected during these years. Even the belfry which was taken down was not rebuilt, and the great bell relegated to a shed in a remote corner of the College, where it lay for fifty years, till the munificence of a Chancellor educated at Oxford retrieved the disgrace. When the old Chapel was removed, so careless were these men of 1798 of the memories of the dead, that the alabaster monument of the pious founder, Luke Challoner, was thrust aside, not even into a shed, but into a corner, where the recumbent figure was defaced by the weather beyond recognition within thirty years. During the rule of the great Provosts there had been frequent bequests from rich members of the Society, who justly held that some practical expression of gratitude was due to the College which had conferred upon them wealth and dignity. That spirit died out with the century. From that day onward, many men drew £50,000 in salaries from the College, and did not return to it one farthing beyond their (often second-rate) official work. Constant gifts of plate from rich students, as well as Fellows, for the use of the College, had replaced the tax for argent, at one time levied (as it still is in some Oxford Colleges) on all who entered the College. These honourable gifts were no longer made, though any but a criminally supine set of rulers could easily have kept them up by example and advice. In fact, the existing plate was concealed in the safes of the Board-room, and never issued except for the Provost’s private use. During these disgraceful forty years no public display brought the College into notice except the lavish feast to George IV. (1821). At the same time, the number of students was very great, the incomes of Seniors in renewal fines, and of Juniors in Tutors’ fees, larger than they ever were before or since; yet these were the years which justly earned for the University of Dublin the now obsolete title of “Silent Sister.” There was a day when Oxford, for like reasons, had obtained the kindred name of “the Widow of Sound Learning.”
And yet the moment when Murray succeeded was one more than likely to stimulate bright spirits to do brilliant work; it was the moment when revolutionary ideas from the Continent were making their way into Ireland; when hot-headed politicians were speaking of National Independence, of Republicanism, of the Rights of Man; it was the age that bore the great poets of the early nineteenth century. One of them, Thomas Moore, whom his greatest contemporaries have recognised and honoured as their peer, was actually a student of Trinity College. He was the last of a considerable series of playwrights and poets, which proves that English studies, at all events, were not neglected in the College course. Congreve, Swift, Goldsmith, Parnell, Sheridan, not to speak of Brady and Tate, and Toplady, prove what Burke mentions in acknowledging the honorary degree offered him by Hutchinson—“I am infinitely pleased that that learned body ... condescends to favour the unaltered subsistence of those principles of Liberty and Morality, along with some faint remains of that taste of Composition, which are infused, and have always been infused, into the minds of those who have the happiness to be instructed by it.”[96] He might have added another all-important training in expression, which used to be a peculiarity of the Dublin Classical School, and which Chatham devised as a means of making his son the prince of debaters. It consisted in the practice of free vivâ voce translation from Greek and Latin into English, wherein the fluency of expression was rated as of equal importance with grammatical accuracy. When we competed for Scholarships in the earlier half of the century, we were required to know a long course of authors in this way; and surely to express the thoughts of another language in fluent English is the best preparation for those who desire to express their own thinking in apt and ready words. So far, then, the narrowness of the Governors was not able to affect the students. Those who went into the world became practical orators of the first rank, while those who remained in the College sank into learned insignificance.
Yet the time, as I have said, was full of excitement, political and social. There were wars and rumours of wars, some men’s hearts failing them for fear, others beating with the expectation of a millennium of Liberty. It was impossible that the great agitation of the country should not reach the ardent spirits whom the late Provost had permitted or encouraged to mix in the world. They had, moreover, started a debating club, the Historical Society, which, after various modest beginnings and failures, became of recognised importance towards the waning of the century. The very essence of these debating societies is to transgress sober discipline; for while it is the duty of Governors of a College to keep their students’ attention upon abstract science, pure philosophy, and classical languages, it is the one aim of debaters to avoid such subjects, and choose those of present and burning interest. Moreover, in those days the modern engines of the press and the platform had not accustomed men to discount the mendacities, the false passion, the gross exaggerations of political oratory. Generous natures were more easily carried away than they now are, when the poison and the antidote succeed one another in the columns of the same newspaper. Wolfe Tone found even among the Fellows two distinguished men, John Stack and Whitley Stokes—these family-names have been for more than two centuries frequent in the honour-rolls of the College—who adopted the views of the United Irishmen, and admitted the principle of making Ireland an independent nation. It is hard to avoid the observation that Boulter’s policy of filling every post of importance with English placemen must have been a powerful agent in turning the opinions of the professional men in Ireland in this direction. Presently the College was seized with military ardour; a yeomanry corps was established, in which four companies were commanded by four lay Fellows, for the purpose of aiding the Government in the impending crisis. But along with the ardour for amateur soldiering so universal among civilians, there crept in the feeling that, with arms in their hands, men should secure not only peace and order in the country, but some recognition of the claims of Ireland, so long neglected and postponed to the most vulgar English interests. One of the captains was, in fact, already an United Irishman, though he seems to have been deterred from going as far as Wolfe Tone would lead him, by Tone’s open assertion that the liberties of the country must be attained even through arms and blood.
Presently it became necessary to revive the dormant Statute forbidding students to attend any political meetings; and when some of the scholars went so far as to avow publicly that they were United Irishmen, in the sense then considered seditious, and one member at least of the Board, who was also M.P. for the University, openly declared himself opposed to taking extreme measures against them, the time seemed come for a formal Visitation. In all this difficult and dangerous passage of the history of the College the Provost is hardly mentioned. The result of the great battle between the Dons and the politicians upon Hutchinson’s death had resulted, as has been said, in the appointment of the Vice-Provost, Murray, a respectable, modest, benevolent old man,[97] wholly unfit to guide the counsels of the Board, or to lead back the wilder students into the paths of discretion or common sense. Moreover, the ultra-Protestant party were in such panic at the state of the country as to make them cruel in their punishments. The Vice-Chancellor was Lord Clare, a very strong and uncompromising member of the Protestant ascendency, who all through his life was perfectly consistent in advocating the English supremacy, and in crushing out all Irish aspirations, even with the halter and the sword. He had been baulked in his policy of repression by the admission of Roman Catholics to Degrees in Trinity College, carried in 1793 by an Act of Parliament, but which would not have been put into effect in that year but for the stout action of Dr. Miller, who, as Senior Master Non-Regent, stopped all the conferring of Degrees till the Vice-Chancellor consented to remit the old oath against Popery. The facts, which are worth knowing in their details, are thus stated by Dr. Stubbs:—
When the first Commencement day after the passing of the Act of Parliament arrived, the Letters Patent altering the College Statutes had not been prepared, and consequently, although the declaration had been abolished by Act of Parliament, the corresponding oath remained. Lord Clare was well known to be opposed to the admission of Roman Catholics to Degrees, and he presided as Vice-Chancellor of the University, and it was expected that he would place every impediment in his power to the relaxation which had been granted by the change in the law. Mr. Miller, who was called upon to act as Senior Master Non-Regent, declined to take his place until he had been formally elected by the Senate, according to the letter of the University Regulations. After some opposition to this proceeding on the part of the Vice-Chancellor, this legal formality was carried out, and Mr. Miller took his seat as one of the Caput.
The usual form at Commencements at that time was, that the Proctor should first supplicate for the Degrees to be conferred, and obtain the suffrages of the Senate, after which being done, the oath and the declaration were read. On this occasion the Vice-Chancellor called on the Proctor to commence by reading the statutable oath. So far no objection was made; but when that officer proceeded to recite the declaration as of old, Miller immediately interfered, and reminded Lord Clare that this declaration had been abrogated by Act of Parliament, and assured him that if it were then insisted on he would, in his capacity as a member of the Caput, prevent any Degrees from being conferred.
Lord Clare was unprepared for this proceeding, and threatened to adjourn the Comitia. However, after referring to the Act, which Mr. Miller had by him, and after a consultation with Mr. Wolfe, the Attorney-General, who was present in the Hall for the purpose of taking the Degree of Doctor of Laws, Lord Clare soon saw that the clause in question, although conditional in the preamble, was peremptory in its enactment, and that the Senior Master Non-Regent was right in point of law. The declaration was not read, and the Commencement proceeded. Letters Patent were shortly afterwards passed making the necessary alteration in the College Statutes, and from that time Roman Catholics have taken lay Degrees without restriction.
It may therefore well be imagined that Lord Clare came in no very good humour to visit the College, and that he probably desired to show to the public that the Act of 1793 had been followed by the consequences which the old ascendency party had foreseen, and therefore urged against it. The second Visitor was Dr. Duigenan, a man intimate with the College in former years, and a very good judge of the characters of the Fellows, now that the old quarrels and animosities with the late Provost and his party had been superseded by far graver questions. I will let Dr. Stubbs narrate the proceedings in his own words.
The Vice-Chancellor, on opening the proceedings, intimated that the object of the Visitors was to inquire whether the disaffection imputed to the College was founded in reality, or was a mere rumour or surmise; and he announced his intention to punish with severity any of the members of the College who should be proved to be encouragers or abettors of treason or sedition. The roll of the College was called, and to every member, as he answered his name, an oath was tendered, and when sworn he was examined as to his knowledge of unlawful societies existing in College. Dr. Browne was asked as to his vote at the Board in the case of Ardagh and Power, and he acknowledged that he had considered expulsion too severe a measure, and therefore had, with two other Senior Fellows, voted for the rustication of the two Students for a year as a suitable punishment, and that he had publicly stated his opinion after the meeting of the Governing Body had terminated. For this open criticism of the decision of the Board he was strongly rebuked by Lord Clare.
Whitley Stokes, when questioned by the Vice-Chancellor, denied that he knew of the existence of societies of United Irishmen in the College, or of any illegal or secret societies within the walls. He admitted that he had been a member of the Society of United Irishmen in 1791, before their revolutionary tendencies had been developed; but he stated that from that period he had altogether dissociated himself from them. He admitted that he had professionally visited, as a physician, a man who was well known for his treasonable proclivities, but who was very ill and very poor, but always in company of a third person, lest his action might be misrepresented. He had also subscribed to a fund which was formed to relieve the necessities of two members of the United Irishmen who were in prison. The most reliable evidence was given on Dr. Stokes’ behalf that he had used his influence among the Students, which was considerable, to induce some of them to withdraw from treasonable associations, and to enroll their names among the members of the College corps, and that his efforts had been successful. In fact, Lord Clare was forced to admit the concurring testimony of so many respectable and independent witnesses in Dr. Stokes’ favour; at the same time he stated that he was a well-meaning man who had been led into great indiscretions.
The Students soon appeared to be reluctant to take the oath, partly because they declined to implicate others, partly because they were unwilling to make admissions which would criminate themselves. At the end of the first day there were fifty who had refused to be sworn. In consequence of this, Lord Clare intimated on the following day that if any of the Students who had been themselves implicated in the proceedings of these treasonable societies would come forward and admit the fact, and would promise that in future they would separate themselves from them, the Visitors would pass over their previous complicity with these associations. Among those who had first refused to take the oath was Thomas Moore. However, when the Vice-Chancellor had explained the matter to the Students, Moore complied, and denied that he had any knowledge of treasonable practices or societies in College. Many of the other Students who had at first declined to be sworn, on the second and third days of the Visitation came forward and confessed their errors. The result of the inquiry of the Visitors was the establishment of the fact that there were four committees of United Irishmen in the College, the secretaries of which were Robert Emmett, Peter M‘Laughlin, the younger Corbett, and Flynn. The sentence of the Visitors was to the effect that Thomas Robinson, Scholar, who had lent his rooms for the meetings of the United Irishmen, and who had in his sworn evidence before the Visitors prevaricated in his answers, was expelled from the College.
William Corbett, Dacre Hamilton, John Carroll, and David Shea, Scholars; and Thomas Corbett, Peter M‘Laughlin, Arthur Newport, John Browne, and George Keough, Students, were also expelled for contumacy in refusing to be sworn, and because they had fallen into the gravest suspicion, in the opinion of the Visitors, of being acquainted with, and partakers in, a seditious conspiracy.
Robert Emmett, Thomas Flynn, John Penefather Lamphier, Michael Farrall, Edward Barry, Thomas Bennett, Bernard Killen, and Patrick Fitzgerald, were expelled for contumacy in refusing to appear before the Visitors, and because there was the gravest suspicion that they were acquainted with, and had been partakers in, the conspiracy.
Martin John Ferrall was expelled because he admitted that he was acquainted with, and had been engaged in, this conspiracy, and because he had not informed the authorities of it, nor had been willing to do so.
As to Dr. Whitley Stokes, the Visitors decided that because he had confessed that he had some intercourse with the heads of the conspiracy he should be precluded from acting as College Tutor, and should for three years be disqualified from sitting as a member of the Board, and from being co-opted to a Senior Fellowship.
These sentences were confirmed on the 1st of May, 1798, by the Duke of Gloucester, as Chancellor of the University.
This drastic treatment, whether just or not, seems to have enabled the College to tide over the crisis of 1798, and to emerge after the Union into that period when it reflects the dulness and prosperity of the country. The last Provost of the century, Kearney, is the type of his day. “This Provost,” says Taylor, with unconscious naiveté, “was always remarkable for his close attention to whatever might be considered for his improvement.” His only notable act was to refuse, with tears in his eyes, the resignation offered him, on the ground of religious difficulties, by the pious John Walker, and to expel him publicly next day. The same man connived at a number of his Fellows being married, in formal violation of their oath. Over against these unwholesome features, and the stagnation in the publishing of solid intellectual work, must be set the undoubted fact that there were men of sound learning and research among the Fellows. Mat. Young, Barrett, Thos. Elrington, Rich. Graves, Geo. Miller, were all men of respectable attainments in their day; and if the classical school produced no compeer of the expelled John Walker, it was at this apparently obscure period that the University of Dublin exchanged its reputation as a school of theology, of eloquence, and of style, for the reputation in Mathematics and Physics which was its only distinction in this century up to the reformations of Bartholomew Lloyd.
