On Whear’s decease in 1647 Tobias Garbrand, of Dutch descent, was made Principal by the Earl of Pembroke as Chancellor. He was ejected at the Restoration in 1660. From this date the fortunes of the Hall seemed to have reached their lowest depth.[337] If a stray gleam of fortune lit upon the place, it was only to suffer immediate eclipse. Thus, when John Warner, Bishop of Rochester, left a foundation in 1666 for the maintenance of four Scotch scholars to be trained as ministers, and the Masters and Fellows of Balliol College were unwilling to receive them, as being not in any way advantageous to the House, they were for a time placed in Gloucester Hall. But when Dr. Good became Master of Balliol in 1672, Gutch remarks with quiet humour, “he took order that they should be translated thither, and there they yet continue.”
The fortunes of the Hall sank lower and lower, till a time came when it remained for several years entirely untenanted by students. It shared in the general depression of the University, to which Wood bears evidence. “Not one Scholar matric. in 1675, 1676, 1677, 1678, not one Scholar in Gloucester Hall, only the Principal and his family, and two or three more families that live there in some part to keep it from ruin, the paths are grown over with grass, the way into the Hall and Chapel made up with boards.”
Prideaux, writing to Ellis (Sept. 18, 1676), says—“Gloucester Hall is like to be demolished, the charge of Chimney money being so great that Byrom Eaton will scarce live there any longer. There hath been no scholars there these three or four years: for all which time the hall being in arrears for this tax the collectors have at last fallen upon the principal, who being by the Act liable to the payment, hath made great complaints about the town and created us very good sport; but the old fool hath been forced to pay the money, which hath amounted to a considerable sum.”
Loggan’s picturesque view, taken in 1675, suggests a mournful desolation, and the pathetic motto which it bears—“Quare fecit Dominus sic domui huic?”—is eloquent of decay. Dr. Byrom Eaton, Archdeacon of Stow, and then of Leicester, had held the Principality for thirty years, when in 1692 he resigned it to make way for a younger and more vigorous man. Such was found in Dr. Woodroffe, one of the Canons of Christ Church, whose nomination to the Deanery by James II. in 1688 had been cancelled at the Revolution in favour of Dean Aldrich. Woodroffe is described by Wood as “a man of a generous and public spirit, who bestowed several hundred pounds in repairing (the place) and making it a fit habitation for the Muses, which being done he by his great interest among the gentry made it flourish with hopeful sprouts.” The hopeful sprouts, however, do not seem to have been so very numerous after all, since we find the entry in Wood’s Life under date Jan. 1694—“I was with Dr. Woodroffe, and he told me he had six in Commons at Gloucester Hall, his 2 sons two.” Prideaux’s letters to Ellis contain several references to Dr. Woodroffe, the reverse of complimentary—ludicrous accounts of sermons, which he confesses to be hearsay accounts, accusations of heiress hunting, of whimsical ill-temper, of want of dignity. “Last night he had Madam Walcup at his lodgings, and stood with her in a great window next the quadrangle, where he was seen by Mr. Dean himself and almost all the house toying with her most ridiculously and fanning himself with her fan for almost all the afternoon.” But Prideaux’s gossip was probably inspired by personal antipathies and College jealousies. Woodroffe was no doubt a keen, bustling, pushing man.[338] He was shrewd enough, at any rate, to marry a good fortune; but became involved in difficulties, which led to the sequestration of his canonry. He seems to have lost no opportunity of advertising himself and combining “public spirit” with private advantage. Such was the man who became associated with one of the most interesting though short-lived experiments in the history of the University—the establishment of a Greek College. Some seventy years had passed since Cyril Lucar, Patriarch first of Alexandria and then of Constantinople, had sent to England a Greek youth, Metrophanes Critopylos, whom Abp. Abbott placed at Balliol College, of which his brother had not long before been Master. Here Critopylos remained as a student till about 1622, when he returned to the East, and subsequently became Patriarch of Alexandria in the room of Cyril Lucar. Nothing more seems to have come of this particular overture, but the English Chaplains of Constantinople, Smyrna, and Aleppo, kept open to some extent the communications with the Eastern Church. At last, upon the representations of Joseph Georgirenes, Metropolitan of Samos (a man who subsequently took refuge in London, and had built for him as a Greek church what is now St. Mary’s, Crown St. Soho), Archbishop Sancroft and others who favoured the hope of reunion with the Eastern Church promoted a scheme for the education of a body of Greek youths at Oxford, and the establishment of a Greek College there. Foremost amongst Oxford sympathizers was Dr. Woodroffe, the newly appointed Principal of Gloucester Hall. In a letter to Callinicos, the Patriarch of Constantinople, he suggests that twenty students, five from each of the four patriarchates, should be sent over to the Greek College now founded at Oxford (Gloucester Hall), which had been placed “on the same rank footing and privilege which the other Colleges enjoy there.” He explains the course of study to be pursued, and suggests the advantage of a reciprocity of students, as also of books and manuscripts. He designates the three English chaplains named above as convenient channels of communication. The scheme contemplated an annual succession of students, who were to be of two classes. For two years they were to converse in Ancient Greek, and then to learn Latin and Hebrew. They were to study Aristotle, Plato, the Greek Fathers, and Controversial Divinity. The services were to be in Greek, and public exercises were to be performed in Greek, as directed by the Vice-Chancellor. Their habit was to be “the gravest worn in their country,” and finally they were to be returned to their respective Patriarchs with a report of the progress made. Trustees were to manage the funds of the College, which was to be supported by voluntary contributions. This bold scheme was but partially attempted, and before long came to a disastrous end. Mr. Ffoulkes, who first claimed attention in the “Union Review” for the Greek College, which, as he observes, had been strangely ignored by Wood’s continuators, quotes from Mr. E. Stevens, a nonjuror, and enthusiastic advocate of “Reunion,” his account of the experiment and its breakdown. Five young Grecians were in 1698 brought from Smyrna and placed in Gloucester Hall. Three of them were, according to Mr. Stephens, lured away by Roman emissaries: two of these, brothers, after various adventures, took refuge with Mr. Stephens, and were at last sent home “with their faith unscathed.” The third was decoyed to Paris, to the Greek College lately established there, presumably in rivalry of the Oxford scheme. There appears too to have been another establishment set up in friendly rivalry at Halle in Saxony. But the most fatal blow was the mismanagement of the College itself. “Though they who came first were well enough ordered for some time; yet afterwards they and those who came after them were so ill-accommodated both for their studies and other necessaries, that some of them staid not many months, and others would have been gone if they had known how; and there are now but two left there.”[339] Add to these drawbacks the temptations of London, and it is not surprising that the Oxford College received its quietus in a missive from Constantinople. “The irregular life of certain priests and laymen of the Eastern Church, living in London, is a matter of great concern to the Church. Wherefore the Church forbids any to go and study at Oxford, be they ever so willing.” This was in 1705. From that moment, as Mr. Ffoulkes picturesquely says, the Greek College “disappears like a dream.” Of its students one name only is preserved to us. We find in Hearne (March 15th, 1707)—“Francis Prasalendius, a Græcian of the Isle of Corcyra, lately a student in the Public Library, and of Gloucester Hall, has printed a book in the Greek language (writ very well as I am informed by one of the Græcians of Glouc. Hall) against Traditions, in which he falls upon Dr. Woodroffe very smartly.”
Worcester College, founded 1714.
But while the Greek College was still perishing of inanition, its principal was engaged in a scheme of a more ambitious though less interesting nature. A Worcestershire Baronet, Sir Thomas Cookes, had made known his desire through the Bishop of Worcester of founding a College at Oxford; £10,000 was the sum he proposed for an endowment. There was competition for the prize. Dr. Woodroffe wanted to secure it for Gloucester Hall, Dr. Mill for St. Edmund Hall, Dr. Lancaster for Magdalen Hall; Balliol College was at one time the favourite object, at another a workhouse for his county. The choice inclined to Gloucester Hall, but was well-nigh lost; for Woodroffe had inserted in the charter a clause providing that the King should have liberty to put in and turn out the Fellows at his pleasure. With the recent experience of Magdalen fresh in men’s minds, such intervention of the crown was not likely to find favour, and Bishop Stillingfleet drily observed that “kings have already had enough to do with our Colleges.” The hopes of Edmund Hall rose high; for indeed the Bishop had, according to Hearne, nominated that Hall in the first place. However Dr. Woodroffe prudently withdrew his clause, and in 1698 a charter passed the great seal for the incorporation of the Hall under the title of the Provost, Fellows, and Scholars of Worcester College, with Dr. Woodroffe for the first Provost.[340] This was followed by a Ratification dated November 18th, naming the Bishop of Worcester as Visitor, and the Bishop of Oxford as his assessor in difficult cases, and making elaborate provision for the organization, conduct, and educational system of the College. There were to be twelve Fellows, six Senior Tutors, six Junior Sub-Tutors, and eight Scholars, chosen from the Founder’s schools of Bromsgrove and Feckenham, or, failing them, from Worcester and Hartlebury. Each Fellow and Scholar was to have £14 per annum, the Provost double that amount. There were to be Lectureships, two “solemnes” in Theology and History, three ordinary in Mathematics, Philosophy, and Philology; the Lecture in Theology to be catechetical, on the model of that at Balliol, and to be given in the chapel. The Prælector of History was to lecture from seven to nine on Sundays on Biblical history. The others were to lecture at the discretion of the Provost five or at least four times a week. An elaborate scheme of medical and other studies was prescribed. There was a carefully-graduated scale of payments “obeuntibus cursus et acta,” ending with 13s. 4d. for the speech in commemoration of the Founder. The Provost was to allot a cubiculum to one or at the most to two occupants. In winter the afternoon chapel service was to be at three, the morning service at seven, but in summer at six. This was to consist of a shorter Latin form “ad usum Ecclesiæ Xti,” with a chapter of the Bible in Greek. Private prayers and Bible-reading were enjoined for each day, and two hours specified for Sunday. A chapter in Greek or Latin was to be read at meal-times in Hall. Offenders against rules were to be “gated” or sent into seclusion, “quasi minor quædam excommunicatio,” or else to be exiled to the ante-chapel. As regards the cook, butler, &c. the Aularian Statutes were to be observed.
After all the Charter remained a dead letter. Sir Thomas Cookes, anxious to find excuses for putting off Dr. Woodroffe’s importunities, claimed for his heirs the nomination to the Headship; and after two years the Chancellor conceded this point. It was objected that the Chancellor had not the power to make this concession without the consent of Convocation: which was never asked; and if it had, would not have been given. Sir Thomas found fresh reasons for hanging back. The fact that Gloucester Hall was a leasehold and that St. John’s were supposed to have been forbidden by their Founder to part with the fee simple was one of these difficulties. Then there were the Statutes, which Sir Thomas Cookes persistently refused to sign, “nor would he pay one farthing for passing the Charter.” In 1701 he died, leaving his £10,000 in the hands of certain Bishops, with the Vice-Chancellor and the Heads of Houses, for the carrying out his intentions. The money was left to accumulate for some years till it amounted to £15,000. In the meantime Dr. Woodroffe tries to obtain an Act in 1702 for settling the money on Gloucester Hall, the lease of which he proposed St. John’s College should make perpetual at the then rent of £5 10s. The Bill, however, was thrown out on the second reading. At Oxford, it is clear, there was a powerful opposition to Dr. Woodroffe and his claim for Gloucester Hall. On Nov. 22, 1707, nineteen out of the thirty Trustees met in the Convocation House, and on the ground that “the erecting of Buildings would make the charity of less use than endowing some Hall in Oxford already built,” determined “to fix the Charity at Magdalen Hall, and to endow Fellows and Scholars there.” On the other hand the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Worcester, the Bishop of Oxford and others were in favour of carrying out what they believed to be in spite of all his vacillation the final determination of Sir Thomas Cookes in favour of Gloucester Hall. They deposed moreover[341] that “the ground Plats of Gloucester Hall and the Gloucester Hall buildings Quadrangles and Gardens are 3 times as much as Magdalen Hall, and the ground on which the buildings of Gloucester Hall stand is twice as much as that of Magdalen Hall, and there are large and capacious chambers in Gloucester Hall to receive 20 scholars, and 9 are inhabited, and the principal’s lodgings are in good repair and fit for a family of 12 persons, and there is a large Hall, Chapel, Buttery and Kitchen, and a large common room lately wainscoted and sash windows, and in laying out about £500 in repairs there will be good conveniency for 60 scholars, and the place is pleasantly situated and in a good air.” Dr. Woodroffe dies in 1711, his ambition still unfulfilled, and a Fellow of St. John’s, Dr. Richard Blechynden, succeeds to the Principalship of an empty Hall. There was, according to Hearne, hardly one Scholar in the place. At last the trustees saw their way to carrying out the will of Sir Thomas Cookes. St. John’s College in 1713 agrees to alienate Gloucester Hall for the sum of £200, and a quit-rent of 20s. per annum. In the following year, two days only before the Queen’s death, a Charter of Incorporation, for the second time, passes the great seal, and Gloucester Hall or College is finally merged in Worcester College. The foundation was now to consist of a Provost, six Fellows, and six Scholars, whose emoluments were to be on a somewhat more liberal scale than that of the original statutes. Fellows and Scholars were to be allowed sixpence a day for commons, the Fellows to have £30 per annum, the Scholars 13s. 8d. a quarter, the Provost £80 per annum, but no allowance for commons. Among the other “ministri” was to be a Tonsor, receiving an annual salary of 20s. This important official lingered on in diminished importance till the present generation. The Bishops of Worcester and Oxford and the Vice-Chancellor were appointed Visitors. In other respects the provisions of the new Statutes were much simplified. The scheme of Lectureships was omitted; so were the elaborate directions as to studies, private devotions, &c., as well as the scale of payments on the performance of exercises. Latin was to be the ordinary speech, “so far as might be convenient,” except at College meetings. Undergraduates were to “dispute” every day, and write weekly Themes; Bachelors to “dispute” twice a week, and make a Terminal “Declamation.” Candidates for Degrees were to oppose or respond on a problem set by the Provost in the College Hall, while candidates for the M.A. Degree had the option of commenting on a passage of Aristotle. On the Degree Day a Bachelor was to give a supper, or pay 20s. for the College uses. The supper given by an M.A. was not to exceed 40s.
Of the new College Principal Blechynden was named as the first Provost; of the six Fellows, one, Roger Bouchier, was already a member of the Hall—“a man of great reading in various sorts of learning, the greatest man in England for Divinity.”[342] The others were Thomas Clymer of All Souls’, Robert Burd of St. John’s, William Bradley of New Inn Hall, Joseph Penn of Wadham, and Samuel Creswick of Pembroke, who was afterwards Dean of Wells.
It was not till 1720, that with the modest sum of £798 0s. 3d., the remnant of a disputed bequest of Mrs. Margaret Alcorne, the newly-founded College was enabled to commence the “restoration” of its buildings. Had the designs of Dr. Clarke, illustrated by the Oxford Almanack of 1741, which were similar in character to those of Hawkesmoor and other architects for the reconstruction of Brasenose, All Souls’, and Magdalen, been carried out, the picturesque history of the place would have been entirely effaced, and a quadrangle of “correct” and “elegant” monotony would have satisfied the taste of Dean Aldrich and the amateurs of the day. Fortunately the means were wanting; all that was put in hand at first were the Chapel, Hall, and Library. By the liberality of Dr. Clarke the interior of the Library was completed in 1736, its exterior in 1746. The Hall was at last finished in 1784, while the Chapel still remained incompleted in 1786, the date of Gutch’s account—nor does the College Register give any indication on the point. But in the meantime two considerable benefactors arose, who contributed new Foundations to the corporation. Dr. Clarke, Fellow of All Souls’ and Member for the University, left an endowment for six Fellowships and three Scholarships, together with his valuable library, while Mrs. Sarah Eaton, daughter of the former principal, bequeathed an endowment for seven Fellowships and five Scholarships to be held by the sons of clergymen. These new Foundations were incorporated by Charter in 1744. For lodging Dr. Clarke’s Foundation the demolition of the old buildings on the north side of the quadrangle was begun, and nine sets of rooms erected by his trustees, 1753-9, while in 1773 the remainder of the old north side was swept away, and twelve sets of rooms built for Mrs. Eaton’s Foundation, together with the present Provost’s lodgings. Meanwhile the College was providently with such resources as it possessed enlarging its borders. In 1741 it purchased of St. John’s College for £850 the garden ground on the south side of the College, and in 1744 the gardens and meadows to the north and west, “together with the house called the Cock and Bottle.” In 1801 it bought for £1330 the “King’s Head,” opposite to the front of the College, and in 1813 enfranchised the premises on the east front held under lease of the City; while in 1806 it cleared away “Woodroffe’s Folly,” a building erected by that Principal opposite the front of the College, for which St. John’s received a valuation of £401 16s. The College thus became surrounded with an open belt, destined to be an incalculable boon in the modern days of building extension. The garden ground on the south side was in 1813 ordered to be kept in hand for the use of the Fellows, and it was about the year 1827 that the late Mr. Greswell signalized his Bursarship by laying out the ornamental grounds, as they now exist. These gardens, falling to a piece of water, together with the fortunate preservation of an open quadrangle, a mode of construction for the merits of which Sir Christopher Wren contended at Trinity,[343] secured to the College the sanitary as well as the picturesque advantages of a rus in urbe—a “rus” so rural that, the tradition runs, a tutor of the last generation would take his gun, and slip down between his lectures to the pool for a shot at a stray snipe.
William Gower, upon Dr. Blechynden’s death, was nominated Provost in 1736. He had been admitted Scholar in 1715, the year after the incorporation of the College. He rivalled Thomas Allen in the length of his connection with the College. For 62 years he was borne upon its foundations, as Scholar, Fellow, or Provost. Longevity has been a characteristic of the Provosts of this College. One only, Dr. Sheffield, held his office for so short a period as 18 years. The other three, Gower, Landon, and Cotton, were Provosts respectively for 41, 44, and 41 years—collectively 126 years, and Dr. Cotton kept 70 years of unbroken residence. Dr. Gower was a man of great literary attainments. He left many valuable books to the College Library. Dr. King[344] says that he was “acquainted with three persons only who spoke English with that eloquence and propriety that if all they said had been immediately committed to writing, any judge of the English language would have pronounced it an excellent and very beautiful style.” The other two were Atterbury and Johnson. It was in his second year’s Provostship that Samuel Foote of Worcester School claimed and established a right to a Scholarship as Founder’s kin. His student life was brief and stormy. In 1740 the College passes sentence that “Samuel Foote having by a long-continued course of ill-behaviour rendered himself obnoxious to frequent censure of the Society public and private, and having while he was under censure for lying out of College insolently and presumptuously withdrawn himself and refused to answer to several heinous crimes objected to him, though duly cited by the Provost by an instrument in form, in not appearing to the said citation, for the above reasons his Scholarship is declared void, and he is hereby deprived of all benefit and advantage of the said Scholarship.” This entry gives an interest to the opening of Gower’s Provostship; another of a different character occurs near its close. In 1775 is recorded an injunction of the Visitors of the College “as to the use of napkins in the Common Hall.”