Secession to Stamford in 1333
The origin of the ‘University at Stamford’ is still more obscure. Anthony Wood tells us simply that several masters, bachelors, and scholars of Oxford ‘did under colour of some discord among them, and upon some pretences sought after, depart hence unto Stamford, in Lincolnshire, and there began, or rather renewed and continued, an academy.’ The seceders themselves, appealing to Edward III. in January 1334, for permission to continue their studies at Stamford, vaguely attributed their withdrawal from Oxford to disputes and disorders which had long prevailed in that University. We may conjecture that it was a secession of Northern students, but the only certain fact is that it was headed by one William de Barnaby. The University of Oxford, much alarmed by the ‘schism,’ as it was called, invoked the aid of the Queen and the Bishop of Lincoln. At last, the King intervened, but it was not till after three Royal monitions and the seizure of their goods, that the malcontents were ejected from Stamford, and the short-lived University broken up in the summer of 1335. A list of offenders was sent to Edward III., but it only contained thirty-eight names, including those of seventeen masters. The ‘Academy’ at Stamford, however, left traces in the local names of streets, which are not even yet wholly effaced, and the jealousy inspired by its rivalry was not extinguished for more than a century. An University statute of uncertain date, but clearly later than 1425, and evidently re-enacting an order already in force, requires every inceptor in any faculty to swear that he will not recognise any University besides Oxford and Cambridge, and that he will not lecture or read at Stamford. Meanwhile, a compact was made between Oxford and Cambridge for their mutual protection against competition, and the dual monopoly of the two ancient Universities was henceforth established.
Growth of the proctorial authority
The peace of the University was further promoted in this turbulent age by the gradual development of the proctorial authority. The origin of the proctors’, like that of the Chancellor’s, office is enveloped in much obscurity. The first proctors named in the official list, which follows the Fasti of Anthony Wood, are Roger de Plumpton and Henry de Godfree, who are set down as having officiated in 1267. Proctors are also mentioned by name under the dates 1281, 1286, and 1288. During the first half of the fourteenth century the entries of proctors occur in fifteen years only, but in one case the same two proctors are expressly stated to have served for two years, and it is quite possible that, even if the election was annual, others may have served for longer periods. Whatever may have been their original functions, there can be no doubt that in 1322, if not much earlier, they became the chief executive officers of the University. It was a main part of their duty to keep the peace, as best they could, not only between scholars and townspeople, but also between the numerous factions among the scholars themselves, between the friars and secular clergy, between the ‘artists’ and the ‘jurists,’ the Nominalists and the Realists, the English students and those from Wales, Scotland, or Ireland, and, most of all, the Northern and Southern nations. The standing quarrel between these great academic parties overshadowed and absorbed into itself all minor rivalries, and influenced every important question for academic action, especially the election of the Chancellor. According to Anthony Wood, it was in order to secure fairness and good order in these elections that, in 1343, the University agreed that one proctor should always be a Northerner and the other a Southerner, for the purpose of acting as scrutineers of the votes. On the other hand, the analogy of the University of Paris might lead us to regard them as representatives, from the very first, of the ‘nations.’ At all events, their powers were infinitely wider and more various than those of mere returning-officers. They kept the money and accounts of the University, regulated the whole system of lectures and disputations, were responsible for academical discipline, and were empowered to impeach the Chancellor himself. Like him, they were elected by the whole body of regents and non-regents in Congregation, but their elections never required the confirmation of the Bishop of Lincoln as diocesan, whereas that of the Chancellor, as we have seen, was originally held invalid until it had been thus confirmed.
Concession by the Pope of freedom in the election of the Chancellor
In the reign of Edward III., however, a great step was made towards academical independence by the disuse of this practice, and thenceforth the University chose its Chancellor as freely as its proctors. Some years before the way had been paved for this revolt against ecclesiastical jurisdiction by a solemn compact between the University and the Cardinal de Mota, then Archdeacon of Oxford by Papal provision, but permanently non-resident. This Cardinal-Archdeacon had assumed to exercise authority over the University through certain agents who practised extortions for his benefit. Thence arose a controversy which lasted twenty years, the Cardinal having instituted proceedings against the University at the Papal Court, while the University appealed first to Edward II. and afterwards to Edward III., both of whom, following the settled policy of the Plantagenet kings, vigorously intervened on its behalf. At last, after tedious negotiations, a compromise, very favourable to University rights, was effected by the mediation of William Bateman, Bishop of Norwich. The Chancellor was declared to have archidiaconal jurisdiction over all doctors, masters, and scholars, religious and lay, and even over all rectors, vicars, and chaplains within the University, unless they should hold cures of souls in Oxford, in which case they should pay canonical obedience to the archdeacon. Moreover, in 1368, a Bull was procured from Pope Urban, solemnly ordaining that thenceforth the election of a Chancellor by the University itself should be sufficient, without the confirmation of the diocesan. The reason alleged is a very practical one—that great inconvenience and even danger to the peace of the University had resulted from the necessity of sending a deputation to follow the Bishop into distant parts, while in the meantime there was no resident officer to keep turbulent persons in order.
FOOTNOTES:
CHAPTER IV.
CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE UNIVERSITY AND THE CITY.
Royal award of 1290