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.
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.