Cambridge Papers W. W. Rouse Ball 852 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Cambridge Papers

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: Cambridge Papers

Author: W. W. Rouse Ball

Release date: January 19, 2017 [eBook #54023]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/54023

Credits: Produced by Laura Wisewell, David Wilson and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (The
original copy of this book was generously made available
for scanning by the Department of Mathematics at the
University of Glasgow.)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CAMBRIDGE
PAPERS ***

i

C A M B R I D G E PA P E R S .

ii

MACMILLAN AND CO., Limited
LONDON · BOMBAY · CALCUTTA · MADRAS

MELBOURNE

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
NEW YORK · BOSTON · CHICAGO

DALLAS · SAN FRANCISCO

THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Ltd.
TORONTO

CAMBRIDGE PAPERS
iii

BY

W. W. ROUSE BALL
FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.

MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
ST MARTIN’S STREET, LONDON

1918
[All rights reserved]

v
PREFACE.

T
HIS volume contains papers on some questions of local history put
together, mostly for undergraduate societies and magazines, at various
times during the last twenty-five years. I have included a memoir,
written for a London Society, on Newton’s Principia, a work that
profoundly affected the development of University studies in the eighteenth
century, and a chapter on the History of the Mathematical Tripos, which at
one time appeared in my Mathematical Recreations and Essays, since these
are concerned with Cambridge subjects.
I print the papers, whether long or short, and whether read at length or, as
was more often the case, curtailed in delivery, substantially in the form in
which they were first written. This leaves allusions which bear evidence to
their domestic origin, and involves, in those of them dealing with cognate
subjects, some repetition of facts. If these are defects they could be
removed only by rewriting much of what appears here; it seems to me
preferable to let the essays stand in their original forms, save occasionally
for
vi
the addition of a paragraph or sentence dealing with what has happened
since they were first presented. The dates in the text are reckoned in the
modern style, taking the year as beginning on the first day of January.

W. W. ROUSE BALL.

Trinity College, Cambridge.
January, 1918.

vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PAGE

Preface v

Part I. Concerning Trinity College.
Chapter I. The Foundation of Trinity College 3
Chapter II. The Tutorial System 26
Chapter III. The Westminster Scholars 48
Chapter IV. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Undergraduates 71
Chapter V. The College Chapel 84
Chapter VI. Some College Treasures 104
Chapter VII. The College Auditors 127
Chapter VIII. Wren’s Designs for the Library 144
Chapter IX. A Christmas Journey in 1319 154
Chapter X. An Outline of the College Story 161

Part II. Concerning the University.
Chapter XI. The Beginnings of the University 179
Chapter XII. Discipline 194
Chapter XIII. Newton’s Principia 225
Chapter XIV. Newton on University Studies 244

Chapter XV. The Mathematical Tripos 252

Index 317

1
PART I.
Concerning Trinity College.

3
CHAPTER I.
THE FOUNDATION OF TRINITY COLLEGE.

rinity college was founded by Henry VIII in 1546. To obtain a site for

t it,which
he suppressed King’s Hall and Michael-House, two medieval colleges
were built on or owned most of the ground now occupied by the
Great Court, and with their revenues, largely augmented by property of
dissolved monasteries, he endowed it. The scheme of the College and his
objects in founding it are stated in his letters patent of 19 December 1546,
and particulars of the income assigned by him to the foundation are set out
in his charter of dotation dated 24 December 1546. These documents have
been printed1 and are readily accessible, but the history of the events
leading up to the foundation of the College is less generally known. I
cannot promise that the story in itself is interesting but the material facts
have never before been brought together2 so its telling is justified.
After
4
the dissolution of the monastic houses, anxiety was felt in Cambridge
and Oxford lest they should suffer a similar fate. The policy of the
suppression of the two universities and the confiscation of their property
was openly advocated by politicians at court, and naturally great alarm was
felt when in 1544 an Act3 was passed empowering the king to dissolve any
college at either university, and appropriate its possessions.
The universities were right in thinking that the danger was pressing, for
Parker, who played a leading part in the affair, has put on record4 the fact
that after the passing of the Act certain courtiers importunately sued the
king to have the possessions of both bodies surveyed, meaning afterwards
to obtain the same on easy terms. In these circumstances the Cambridge
authorities, says Strype, “looked about them and made all the friends they

could at court to save themselves.” In particular they urgently begged the
aid of two of their professors, John Cheke, then acting as tutor to the prince
of Wales, and Thomas Smith, then clerk to the queen’s council. Here is the
letter5 of the senate to Smith on the subject:
Si tu is es, Clarissime Smithe, in quem Academia haec Cantabrigiensis universas vires suas,
5 universa pietatis jura exercuerit, si tibi uni omnia doctrinae suae genera, omnia reipub.
ornamenta libentissime contulerit, si fructum gloriae suae in te uno jactaverit, si spem salutis
suae in te potissimum reposuerit: age ergo, et mente ac cogitatione tua complectere, quid tu
vicissim illi debes, quid illa, quid literae, quid respublica, quid Deus ipse pro tantis pietatis
officiis, quibus sic dignitas tua efflorescit, justissime requirit: Academia nil debet tibi, imo
omnia sua in te transfudit. Et propterea abs te non simpliciter petit beneficium, sed merito repetit
officium: nec unam aliquam causam tibi proponit, sed sua omnia, et seipsam tibi committit. Nec
sua necesse habet aperire tibi consilia, quorum recessus et diverticula nosti universa. Age igitur
quod scis, et velis quod potes, et perfice quod debes. Sic literis, academiae, reipublicae, et
religioni; sic Christo et Principi rem debitam et expectatam efficies. Jesus te diutissime servet
incolumem.

Parker tells us that the London friends of the University, among whom
Smith and Cheke were doubtless conspicuous, wisely took the line of
welcoming an enquiry, but begged the king to avoid the expense of a costly
investigation. Their representations were successful, and he issued a
commission6 dated 16 January 1546 to Matthew Parker (then vice-
chancellor, and later archbishop of Canterbury), John Redman (warden of
King’s Hall, chaplain to the king, and later master of Trinity), and William
Mey (president of Queens’, and later archbishop-elect of York) to report to
him
6
on the revenues of the colleges and the numbers of students sustained
therewith. The commissioners were capable and friendly.
The king must have been impatient to know the facts, for in less than a
week, on 21 January, he ordered Parker to come to Hampton Court with the
report. Immediate compliance was impossible, but the command may well
have stimulated the commissioners to act as rapidly as possible. In fact they
obtained the services of eleven clerks from the Court of Augmentations in
London, and at once set to work to collect information.
The University was keenly alive to the risks it was incurring. To placate the
king, the senate, on 13 February, put all its belongings at his service, and
when forwarding a copy of the grace to Secretary Sir William Paget it
reminded him of the value of the University to the state, and begged his

protection. At the same time it addressed the queen, Katharine Parr, through
Thomas Smith, imploring her advocacy.7

The queen replied8 on 26 February. After complaining that he had written to
her in Latin, though he could equally well have expressed himself in the
vulgar tongue, she discoursed at length on the duties of members of the
University,
7
and, saying that she was confident that her wishes in these
respects would be fulfilled, she concluded her letter as follows:
I (according to your desires) have attempted my lord the King’s Majesty, for the establishment
of your livelihood and possessions: in which, notwithstanding his Majesty’s property and
interest, through the consent of the high court of parliament, his Highness being such a patron to
good learning, doth tender you so much, that he will rather advance learning and erect new
occasion thereof than [to] confound those your ancient and godly institutions, so that learning
may hereafter justly ascribe her very original whole conservation and sure stay to our Sovereign
Lord.

This was good news, and things now moved rapidly. By the end of February
the commissioners had drawn up a detailed report giving the information
required. It is printed9 at length in the Cambridge Documents, 1852, and
occupies nearly 200 pages.
The commissioners in person presented to the king at Hampton Court a
brief summary of this report. We do not know the date of this interview, but
conjecturally it may be put as being early in March. Parker has left10 in his
own handwriting a full account of their reception as follows:
In the end, the said commissioners resorted up to Hampton Court to present to the King a brief
8 summary written in a fair sheet of vellum (which very book is yet reserved in the college of
Corpus Christi) describing the revenues, the reprises, the allowances, and number and stipend of
every College. Which book the King diligently perused; and in a certain admiration said to
certain of his lords which stood by, that he thought he had not in his realm so many persons so
honestly maintained in living by so little land and rent: and where he asked of us what it meant
that the most part of Colleges should seem to expend yearly more than their revenues amounted
to; we answered that it rose partly of fines for leases and indentures of the farmers renewing
their leases, partly of wood sales: whereupon he said to the lords, that pity it were these lands
should be altered to make them worse; (at which words some were grieved, for that they
disappointed lupos quosdam hiantes). In fine, we sued to the King’s Majesty to be so gracious
lord, that he would favour us in the continuance of our possessions such as they were, and that
no man by his grace’s letters should require to permute with us to give us worse. He made
answer and smiled, that he could not but write for his servants and others, doing the service for
the realm in wars and other affairs, but he said he would put us to our choice whether we should
gratify them or no, and bade us hold our own, for after his writing he would force us no further.
With which words we were well armed, and so departed.

This important interview was followed by a rumour that it was Henry’s
intention to found at Cambridge a new and magnificent college to serve as
an enduring record of his interest in learning, and perhaps the University
may have taken the queen’s letter as indicating what was coming. It is
believed
9
that Henry had long entertained vague ideas of the kind, but that
the definite suggestion, which was encouraged by the queen, originated
with Redman, who, as royal chaplain, had constant access to the king and
considerable influence with him.
The preparations for Henry’s proposed foundation were made with extreme
speed: a wise course in view of his failing health and variable temper. It was
decided to take advantage of the Act of 1544 and suppress King’s Hall and
Michael-House, using their grounds and adjoining property as the site of the
new college. We have no reference to the appointment of commissioners for
the business, though there is an allusion, quoted later, to receivers: perhaps
the matter was left in the hands of the officials of the Court of
Augmentations. Redman was the chief authority at Cambridge in the
arrangements that had to be made there, and it was intended that he should
be the first master of the new college when it was founded.
The two Societies above mentioned were (save for Peterhouse) the oldest in
the University. To Trinity men their history has, naturally, great interest, and
I interpolate a few remarks on this and their position in 1546.
The King’s Scholars, normally thirty-two in number and of all ages from
fourteen upwards, were established by Edward II under a warden in 1317
and
10
incorporated in 1337. They had for their original home a large house
(King’s Hall) situated on the grass plot and walk in front of the present
chapel, and rapidly acquired all the adjacent land between the High Street
(now known as Trinity Street) and the river, extending their buildings in
various directions. Popular writers sometimes assert or assume that all
medieval colleges were founded for poor students. That is not universally
true. No condition of poverty was imposed on the scholars of King’s Hall,
nor was their life here penurious: they had a dining-hall, library, common
room, chapel, kitchens, a brewery, a vineyard, a garden, and a staff of
servants maintained by the Society, while a good many of them also kept
their own private servants: they received a liberal allowance for daily
commons, clothes and bedding were supplied from the royal wardrobe, and

pocket-money was given to buy other things. They were appointed by the
crown largely from among the families of court officials, nominations being
restricted to those who knew Latin. After completing their course many of
these students entered what we may call the higher civil service of the time
in church or state.
In the report of the commissioners, the annual income of King’s Hall was
returned as £214. 0s. 3d. and the expenses as £263. 16s. 7d.; and it was
stated that at the time there were on its boards, a master, twenty-five
graduate
11
fellows, and seven undergraduate fellows, besides servants. The
Society owned the patronage of the livings of Arrington, Bottisham,
St Mary’s Cambridge, Chesterton, Fakenham, Felmersham, and Grendon.
According to the return, the normal annual expenditure of King’s Hall, if all
the scholars resided, required £182. 18s. 4d. for the emoluments of the
warden and fellows (namely, £8. 13s. 4d. for the warden, £5. 10s. 0d. for
each of twenty-five graduate fellows, and £5. 5s. 0d. for each of seven
undergraduate fellows); £32. 2s. 0d. for the college servants (namely, the
butler, barber, baker, brewer, laundress, cook, under-cook, and the warden’s
servant); £3. 1s. 4d. for the estate officers and quit-rents; £3. 19s. 4d. for the
expenses of the chapel services and the bible-clerk; £5. 0s. 0d. for firing for
the hall and kitchen; £5. 0s. 0d. for rushes for the hall; £5. 10s. 4d. for the
exequies of the founder and the following refections; £29. 1s. 4d. for repairs
and renewals; and £10 for extraordinary expenses.
The other College (Michael-House) whose buildings were transferred to
Trinity was of a different type. It was founded by Hervey de Stanton in
1324 for a master and six secular clergy who wished to study in the
University. Their original home was a large house on the site of the present
combination room and the land round it; later they acquired all the property
between
12
Foul Lane and the river. At first the Society’s means were barely
sufficient for its needs, but in time it received many gifts, and the
foundation was increased to a master and eight priests with chaplains and
bible-clerks. It had an oratory in its House but did not need a chapel as it
owned St Michael’s Church; traces of this ownership will be noticed in the
arrangement for stalls (to be occupied by members of the Society) in the
choir, which is sunk below the level of the nave and chancel.

In the report of the commissioners, the annual income of Michael-House
was returned as £141. 13s. 1¾d. and its expenses as £143. 18s. 0d.; and it
was stated that there were on its boards a master, eight fellows, and three
chaplains, besides servants. Besides St Michael’s Cambridge, the Society
owned the patronage of the livings of Barrington, Boxworth, Cheadle,
Grundisburgh, and Orwell. According to the return, the normal annual
expenditure of Michael-House required a sum of £91. 10s. 8d. for the
emoluments of the Society (namely, £7. 6s. 8d. for the master, £47. 17s. 4d.
for the six fellows on the original foundation, £11. 6s. 8d. for the two Illegh
fellows, £15 for three chaplains, one of whom served Barrington, and £10
for four bible-clerks), £1 for the auditor, £6. 6s. 8d. for college servants
(namely, the cook, butler, barber, and laundress), rather more than £17 for
the
13
exequies of benefactors, £1. 13s. 4d. for the commemoration refection,
£20 for repairs, and £6. 6s. 8d. for extraordinary expenses. A clerical society
like Michael-House had no difficulty in providing for due celebration of the
exequies of its friends, and in fact more than twenty benefactors are
mentioned by name as being thus commemorated every year. In 1544, the
House, presumably with the object of averting its destruction, began to
admit students resident elsewhere in the University, and in a couple of years
no less than forty-eight students matriculated from it; the number of
admissions must have exceeded this, but what was involved in such cases
by admission is uncertain.
A scheme containing a “first plott or proportion” for the new College was
prepared for the king by the Court of Augmentations in London; it seems
certain that this was worked out in collaboration with Redman. The clerk
who drew it up was Thomas Ansill. The College, after its foundation,
recognized its obligation to him in the matter and presented him to the
vicarage of Barford which was and is in its gift. He preserved a copy of his
scheme; this was purchased from his son by one of the fellows in 1611, and
given to the College.
The manuscript of the suggested scheme, to which Mr Bird first called my
attention, is endorsed Distribucio Collegii and headed “the proporcon
diuised
14
for Trinite College.” It is undated, but in a later hand it is added that
it was made Anno 37 Hen. 8, and therefore before 22 April 1546. From
internal evidence it must have been composed in or after March in that year,
since those who graduated in that Lent term are described as being of the

standing of the degrees then taken. Of those who graduated afterwards
some are described correctly, others not so: doubtless Redman knew about
the standing of the members of King’s Hall and Michael-House, but he may
well have made mistakes about the standing of some of the junior students
of other colleges. If however we accept the endorsement as correct, we may
fix the date of the composition of the plan as being in the early half of April,
1546. This manuscript has not been printed, and I proceed to describe it.
The object of the compilers of this scheme was to see what income would
be required for the suggested new College, and to arrange how the income
should be used; incidentally it reveals the general organization proposed.
The constitution of the College, the various offices to be created, and the
stipends intended are specified. In most cases the names of the proposed
fellows, scholars, bedesmen, and servants are given, but generally the
allocation of the proposed principal offices is not indicated and probably
had not been then arranged. The names of the proposed fellows and
scholars
15
agree with those appointed later, though the order is not always the
same, but the provisional list of bedesmen differs from that of those
ultimately nominated.
The Distribucio begins with a statement of the names and suggested
stipends of the master and fellows. The stipend of the master was to be
£100 a year: that of each of the next fifteen fellows (one of those proposed
being a doctor of divinity, ten bachelors of divinity, and four masters of
arts) was to be £10 a year and £1 a year for livery: that of each of the next
twenty-five fellows (twenty-two of those nominated being masters of arts
and three bachelors of arts) was to be £8 a year; that of each of the next
twenty fellows and scholars (seven of the nominees being bachelors of arts
and thirteen junior scholars) was to be £6. 13s. 4d. a year. The names are
given and agree with those in the letters patent of 19 December.
There was to be a schoolmaster (Richard Harman) who was to have £20 a
year, an usher of grammar (William Boude) who was to have £10 a year,
and provision was made for forty childer grammarians, whose names are
given, each of whom was to have £4 a year. This shows that it was intended
that the foundation should include students in grammar, and the two
teachers specially responsible for them were to be a schoolmaster and usher.

The
16
question arises whether it was intended to found a grammar-school
connected with the College or whether these grammarians were what we
should call undergraduate scholars or exhibitioners. The former view is the
correct one, for the royal commissioners in May 1549 definitely asked11 the
College “to surrender the Grammar Schole.” This was done and the school
was then absorbed in the College. Probably at that time the distinction
between boys at the grammar-school and junior undergraduates was not
regarded as important—the term grammarian or grammaticus being
commonly used for a junior undergraduate as well as a school-boy12. This
indifference to the distinction between the two classes is illustrated by the
fact that of the grammarian school-boys named in the Distribucio, ten were
already matriculated members of the University, nine matriculated from
Trinity shortly after its foundation, and of the others six matriculated in
1548 or 1549 which is not inconsistent with their having been students of
the University in 1546.
In 1547, the accounts include a particular payment for six boys of the
grammar-school, and wages for one quarter for the schoolmaster and Mr
Boude; thus showing that the school was then being carried on. In 1548, the
accounts
17
specify forty-two grammatici, in addition to certain graduates and
dialectici, as being in residence, but in this year there is no mention of a
schoolmaster or an usher though possibly they may be included among the
ten lectors for whom provision is made. In 1551 the grammatici appear as
discipuli, and thenceforth the grammarians were treated as undergraduate
scholars.
The Distribucio next goes on to enumerate seven readers. Three of these
were to be public or university readers, of whom one (John Maydew) was
to read in divinity, one (John Cheke) in Greek, and one (Thomas Wakefield)
in Hebrew, each at £40 a year. The other four were to be fellows of the
College, of whom one (Simon Bridges) was to read in divinity at £6. 13s.
4d. a year, two in philosophy at £5 a year each, and one in logic at £5 a
year: such stipends to be in addition to their fellowship emoluments. It
would seem that Bridges or Briggs declined to accept the nomination to a
fellowship at Trinity and accordingly was not appointed to the office.
Provision was also made for two under-readers in logic at £2. 3s. 4d. each.
Next are mentioned two examiners in scholastic acts at £5 a year each; and
two chaplains at £6. 13s. 4d. a year each, one (Henry Man) for the fellows

and the other (unnamed) for the childer and bedesmen. I note that Henry
Man
18
occupied for many years rooms in the Great Court adjoining and on
the west side of what is now known as the Queen’s Gate.
The next entry is that of twenty-four almsmen or bedesmen at £6 a year
each; the names of all but one are given, but the list differs somewhat from
that appearing in the account book of 1547 of those appointed when the
College began work. The unnamed bedesman was the cook of Michael-
House, and it is impossible not to wonder whether his inclusion in this list
(which involved his retirement from the kitchens) was due to the memory
of indifferent dinners eaten by Redman when a guest at the high table of
that House.
The Distribucio then returns to the enumeration of the officers and servants
of the College. There were to be two bursars at £4 a year each; a vice-
master at £5 a year; two deans to direct disputations of divinity and
philosophy, one at £4 a year, and the other at £3. 6s. 8d. a year; eight bible-
clerks, whose names are given, to serve the hall, choir and vestry, and to
attend upon the curate when visiting, at £2. 13s. 4d. a year each; an organ-
player at £6 a year and his commons; two butlers, the senior at £5 a year
and the junior at £4 a year; a manciple at £6. 13s. 4d. a year; a master-cook
at £6 a year; two under-cooks, one at £4 a year, and the other at £3. 6s. 8d. a
year;
19
and a turn-spit at £2 a year. There was also to be a barber at £5 a year;
a laundress at £5 a year; a porter at £6 a year; a bricklayer at £4 a year; a
carpenter at £4 a year; a mason at £4 a year; two stewards of lands at £5 a
year each; an auditor for the lands at £10 a year; a receiver for the lands at
£13. 6s. 8d.; and an attorney in the exchequer for the lands at £3. 6s. 8d.
Allowance was to be made for the yearly distribution of alms to the amount
of £20; and of another £20 to be spent on the mending of highways. The
total expenditure contemplated amounts to £1286. At the end in another
handwriting is added that allowance (amount unspecified) should be also
made for wine and wax, riding, extraordinary charges, and repairs.
It must have been in April, or early in May, 1546, that the commissioners,
or other officials concerned, took possession of King’s Hall and Michael-
House and the ground adjacent thereto. They at once made arrangements to
shut up Foul Lane which ran across the present Great Court, to purchase
such part of that court as did not belong to King’s Hall and Michael-House,

and to enclose the site. Stone and other materials for the new work were
taken from the church and cloisters of the dissolved Franciscan monastery
which stood on the land now occupied by Sidney Sussex College, and in a
survey, dated 20 May 1546, those buildings are described as having been
already
20
partially demolished in order to provide “towards the building of
the King’s Majesty’s new College.”
It is probable that during this time members of King’s Hall and Michael-
House were in residence, and possibly also some of the members-elect of
Trinity College. The cost of the maintenance of the House and the expenses
of the alterations must have been heavy, but in December 1546, the Court of
Augmentations was ordered13 “to pay Dr Redman of your new College in
Cambridge £2000 towards the establishment and building of the same, and
in recompense for revenues of their lands for a whole year ended
Michaelmas last, because the rents were paid to your Majesty’s receivers
before they had out letters patent for their donation.” We have no record of
these expenses, but I conjecture that this grant allowed a clean start to be
made from Michaelmas 1546.
The members of the new College entered into possession of the buildings
and began their academic life as members of Trinity College about
Michaelmas 1546. The surrender of King’s Hall and Michael-House to the
king took place on 28 October, and arrangements were than made to
pension the master and eight fellows of Michael-House and one fellow of
King’s Hall. Redman was appointed master of the new foundation.
The
21
original members of the Society were selected from the whole
University with the addition of a few Oxonians: it is believed that all the
nominees were favourable to the new learning and the protestant faith. Of
the forty childer grammarians named in the Distribucio all save one
accepted the nomination; of these, six had been previously members of
Michael-House, one a member of Pembroke, one of Peterhouse, one of
St John’s, and one of some unnamed College. Of the sixty students
nominated to fellowships or scholarships in the letters patent, fourteen did
not reside and presumably refused the nomination. Of the forty-six who
accepted the office, thirty-six were graduates and ten were non-graduates.
Of these thirty-six nominees, three came from Michael-House, one from
King’s Hall, two from Christ’s, one from Corpus, one from King’s, one

from Pembroke, two from Peterhouse, one from Queens’, one from
St Catharine’s, and three from St John’s: of the colleges or hostels from
which the remaining twenty had graduated, I can find no particulars. Of the
ten non-graduates who accepted the office, one had been at Pembroke, one
at Queens’, two at St John’s, and one at Trinity Hall: of the previous history
of the remaining five I know nothing. Of the fourteen who did not reside
and presumably declined the offer, eleven were graduates, of whom one had
been
22
at Corpus, one at King’s, one at Pembroke, three at Queens’, two at
St John’s, and two at Oxford, and of the remaining graduate I can find no
particulars. Of the three non-graduates who did not accept the nomination,
one had been at Michael-House, one at Oxford, and of the other I know
nothing. It appears from the account-books that there were also still in
residence a few students14 who had been members of King’s Hall and
Michael-House: it was only courteous to give these deposed students the
hospitality of the House, and they occupied a different position to the
pensioners and fellow-commoners who later were admitted in considerable
numbers. We cannot prove or disprove the presence at this time of other
students, but it is most likely that at first there were no residents in College
other than those mentioned above.
The legal formalities connected with the surrender of the properties of
King’s Hall and Michael-House took a considerable time, and were not
completed till 17 December 1546. The letters patent founding the College
and the charter of dotation were signed a few days later15. The actual
endowment
23
granted was valued at £1640 net a year, which must have been
deemed ample to provide for the expenses and the maintenance of the
House. Comparing this income and the estimated expenditure with those of
King’s Hall and Michael-House we gather how much more important than
these colleges was the contemplated new foundation.
Thus were King’s Hall and Michael-House dissolved, but only to be merged
in a new and nobler Society. The letters patent founding Trinity College
state that Henry to the glory and honour of Almighty God and the Holy and
Undivided Trinity, for the amplification and establishment of the Christian
and true religion, the extirpation of heresy and false opinion, the increase
and continuance of divine learning and all kinds of godliness, the
knowledge of language, the education of youth in piety virtue discipline and
learning, the relief of the poor and destitute, the prosperity of the Church of

Christ, and the common good and happiness of his kingdom and subjects,
founded and established a College of letters, sciences, philosophy;
godliness, and sacred theology, for all time to endure. These are noble
objects, and we may look back with honourable pride to the way in which
Trinity College has on the whole carried out the intentions of its founder.
The organization of the new College followed closely that outlined in the
Distribucio.
24
To meet the expenses already incurred during the Michaelmas
term the Court of Augmentations16 in January 1547 paid Redman £590
“towards the exhibition of King’s Scholars in Cambridge.” This was about
one-third of the total intended income of the House, and presumably cleared
matters up to 24 December 1546, when the College entered into possession
of its endowments. If we may trust the sermon preached in London on
12 December 1550, by Thomas Lever, subsequently master of St John’s
College, Trinity had reason to regret the death of Henry in January 1547, for
the preacher asserted that a substantial part of the intended endowment was
appropriated by courtiers in London; I have never investigated what part (if
any) of it was thus lost to the College.
The first account-book of the new College covers the civil year 1547, but
only certain selected items of income and expenditure appear therein. It
shows total receipts of £786. 16s. 7d. and total payments of £799. 11s. 1½d.
Most of the income is said to have come from the “Tower.” I conjecture that
rents, etc. were paid to the master who kept the college moneys in the
treasury in the Tower, and the bursar in his book accounted only for such
portion
25
of it as was handed to him: of other sums received or paid on
account of the Society, we have no particulars. In most cases the commons
(though not the stipends or wages) paid to officers are set out, but up to
Lady-Day instead of giving full details there is an entry of £52. 6s. 10d.
paid to fellows and scholars for “the first quarter after the erection, besides
stipends and wages.” The account-book for the next year, 1548, is better
kept. It shows total receipts of £531. 13s. 11½d. and total payments of
£528. 12s. 8½d. In the accounts of this year are mentioned a master, fifty
graduate fellows (of whom thirteen were bachelors), ten dialectici, forty-
two grammarians, and eight bible-clerks. Entries appear of payments for
commons to six former members of King’s Hall and Michael-House, but of
these only three seem to have been in regular residence. An examination of
the early account-books allows us to see something of the development of

the College, but a description of this would hardly come within the purview
of this paper.

1 Cambridge Documents issued by the Royal Commissioners, London, 1852, vol. III,
pp. 365–410.
2 This was true some years ago when this paper was written, but since then I have
given part of the story in a booklet on the King’s Scholars and King’s Hall which, at the
request of the College, I wrote in 1917 for the meeting held to celebrate the six-
hundredth anniversary of the execution by Edward II of the writ establishing those
scholars in the University of Cambridge.
3 37 Henry VIII, cap. 4.
4 Correspondence of M. Parker, Cambridge, 1852, p. 34.
5 Life of T. Smith by J. Strype, Oxford, 1820, pp. 29–30.
6 State Papers, Domestic, 1546, vol. xxi, part i, no. 68. See also J. Lamb’s Documents,
London, 1838, pp. 58–59; Correspondence of M. Parker, Cambridge, 1852, p. 34.
7 State Papers, Domestic, 1546, part i, nos. 203, 204.
8 Ecclesiastical Memorials by J. Strype, Oxford, 1882, vol. XI, part i, pp. 207–208;
Correspondence of M. Parker, p. 36.
9 Cambridge Documents, vol. I, pp. 105–294.
10 Correspondence of M. Parker, pp. 35–36; J. Lamb’s Documents, p. 59.
11 State Papers, Domestic, Edward VI, May 1549.
12 Senior undergraduates were then commonly termed dialectici.
13 State Papers, Domestic, 1546, no. 647 (25).
14 Three fellow-commoners had matriculated from King’s Hall in 1544.
15 The charter of foundation, dated 19 December, and that of endowment, dated
24 December, are printed at length in the Cambridge Documents, vol. iii, pp. 365–410.
16 C. H. Cooper, Annals of Cambridge, Cambridge, 1842, vol. i, p. 452.

26
CHAPTER II.
THE TUTORIAL SYSTEM.

he word Tutor is used at Cambridge to describe an officer of a College

t who stands to his pupils in loco parentis; now-a-days he may, but does
not necessarily, give direct instruction to them. The object of this chapter
is to describe the development of the office in Trinity College.
Trinity College was founded in 1546 by Henry VIII. It is, however,
essential in dealing with its early history to bear in mind that it was founded
in a pre-existing17 University having well-established rules and customs.
Nearly all the original members of Trinity had been educated at Cambridge,
they were familiar with its traditions, and even the buildings they occupied
were associated with the college life of earlier times. It was intended that
the Society should promote the reformed religion and the new learning, but
there is no reason to suppose that in establishing it, it was wished or
proposed to alter the existing practice about the tuition, guidance, and care
of the younger students.
In
27
the system in force in the University shortly before the foundation of
Trinity, the students corresponding to our scholars and sizars lived in
endowed colleges (of which eight were founded before 1353 and seven
between 1440 and 1520), most of those corresponding to our pensioners in
unendowed private hostels (of which in the sixteenth century there were
twenty-seven and in earlier times possibly a few more), and most of those
belonging to religious orders in monasteries or monastic hostels. A student
on admission to the University was apprenticed to some master of arts or
doctor who directed the lad’s studies until he took a master’s degree. This
graduate was known as the student’s “master”: in the case of a member of a

college we may assume that the master was chosen from among the senior
members of the House, though it is doubtful if this was necessarily so in the
case of the hostels. The head of a college or hostel was responsible for the
conduct and control of the lad in non-scholastic matters, but in colleges in
later times this work was assigned to a dean. Thus for practical purposes a
tutorial system already existed in the medieval system of apprenticeship and
control.
The royal scheme for Trinity College comprised a master, fifteen senior
fellows, twenty-five middle fellows, twenty junior fellows (of whom, in
1546, thirteen were undergraduates), and forty grammarian school-boys. In
addition
28
to these, there were servant-students (known as sizars or
subsizars), each being attached as gyp to a particular fellow, and receiving
education, board, and lodging in lieu of money wages. There is nothing to
show whether or not the presence of pensioners was contemplated.
We have a list, apparently complete, of all the intended officers; tutors do
not appear among them, though a schoolmaster and usher were provided for
the grammarians. Hence it would seem that the relation between an
apprenticed undergraduate and his master was regarded as personal, and
that the latter was selected and paid by his pupil or pupil’s guardian, and not
by or through the College—I conjecture that this was the usual medieval
practice. The deans are mentioned as officers of the College, and the
discipline of the younger members was part of their business, though no
doubt a lad’s master or tutor assisted in enforcing it. The formal charter of
foundation was given by Henry in December 1546, but the grammarians are
not mentioned therein.
During the next six years, 1546–1552, three important developments took
place. First, the grammar-school side of the College was abandoned, and all
boys then in the school were entered as scholars of the House; next, and
perhaps consequent on the abolition of the school, a distinction between
fellows
29
and scholars was drawn; and finally, following the growing custom
of other colleges, the admission of pensioners was definitely recognized as
desirable, thus introducing a class of students below the standing of
scholars. Before coming to the subject of tutors it will be well to add a word
or two about the pensioners and scholars of these early days.

With the upset of the medieval scheme of education the number of
pensioners and fellow-commoners seeking admission to the University
greatly decreased, and the reception of a limited number of them in the
colleges fairly met the needs of the University. The private hostels were
then no longer wanted and being unendowed disappeared. Thus when again,
as soon happened, the number of would-be pensioners increased, it was
necessary (unless new non-collegiate arrangements were made for their
reception in the University) to admit them in larger numbers to the colleges.
At Trinity a limit was, in theory, placed on the number of pensioners
admissible, but not on that of fellow-commoners. A pensioner at Trinity,
and I suppose also at other colleges, had to be qualified by learning and
morals for admission, and I conceive further that his entry was conditional
on his finding a fellow who would receive him. A pensioner or fellow-
commoner had no rights, and resided only on such terms and as long as the
College or the fellow receiving him willed. I believe that students of this
class
30
did not often stay here for more than three or four years unless in due
course they became scholars.
A most important question for the new College was how the supply of
scholars and fellows should be provided. In King’s Hall vacancies were
filled by royal nomination, and boys came into residence as scholars-elect.
We do not know what was proposed in 1546, but I think that, as far as entry
to the grammar-school was concerned, nomination by the senior fellows
was the most likely method to have been contemplated. The abandonment
of the school and the enrolment of all its members as scholars of the House
must however have raised the question in an acute form, and it was settled
in or before 1552 by the establishment of an annual examination for the
election of scholars. Probably from the first it was intended that the new
fellows should be formally elected and admitted.
The charter of 1546 contains a reference to statutes to be given later by the
king. There was considerable delay in preparing these, and the liberty of
action thus left to the Society seems to have been used unwisely, for the
commissioners of 1549 reported that its state was “much out of order,
governed at large and pleasure for want of statutes ... the fellows for the
most part too bad.”

In
31
November 1552 the College received the long-expected statutes by
which it was to be governed: with their appearance we leave the field of
conjecture and come to facts. The foundation as here described included a
master, fifty fellows of the standing of master or doctor, and sixty bachelor
and undergraduate scholars: provision was also made for student-servants
or sizars. Vacancies in the roll of scholars were to be filled by an annual
election held at Michaelmas on the result of a two days’ examination.
Bachelors of arts and those insane or suffering from contagious disease (a
curious conjunction) were ineligible: also there could not, at any one time,
be more than three scholars from any one county. The regulation that a
bachelor was not eligible for election to a scholarship suggests that a
candidate might be in residence as an undergraduate, though it does not
exclude the candidature of those who were not already members of the
House, but the custom (if it ever existed) of electing non-residents had died
out before 1560. The admission of pensioners, not exceeding fifty-four in
number, was definitely recognized in 1552: of these the master might take
as his pupils four, and each fellow one. The pensioner which every fellow
might thus receive was in addition to such scholars as had been assigned to
him as pupils, but though scholars had tutors, the fellow responsible for a
pensioner
32
is not explicitly described as his tutor. It seems that an important
part of the duty of a tutor was to see that all payments due to the college
from his pupils were made punctually. Scholars, unlike pensioners, had
definite rights.
The following are some of the regulations:
Nemo ex discipulis sine tutore in collegio sit, qui fuerit, expellatur. Pupilli tutoribus pareant,
honorem paternum et reverentiam exhibeant, quorum cura consumitur in illis informandis et ad
pietatem scientiamque instruendis. Tutores fideliter et diligenter quae docenda sunt suos
doceant, quae agenda instruant et admoneant. Omnia pupillorum expensa tutores collegio
praestent, et singulis mensibus aes debitum pro se et suis quaestoribus solvant. Quod ni fecerint,
tantisper commeatu priventur dum pecunia dissolvatur. Pupillus neque a tutore rejiciatur, neque
tutorem suum ubi velit mutet nisi legitima de causa a praeside et senatu probanda; qui fecerit
collegio excludatur.... In discipulis eligendis praecipua ratio ingenii et inopiae sit, in quibus ut
quisque valet maxime ita ceteris proferatur. Eo adjungatur doctrinae studium et mediocris jam
profectus, et reliqui temporis spes illum fore ad communem reipublicae posthac idoneum.
Horum studium sit ut vitae innocentiam cum doctrinae veritate conjungant, et in veritate rerum
inquirendi et honestate persequenda laborent.... Sic sint grammaticis et studiis humanitatis
instituti ut inquisitiones aulae sustinere et domesticas exercitationes suscipere possint....
Pensionarii et studiorum socii in collegium recipiantur ... provideatur ut neque praesidi plures
quam quatuor neque singulis sociis plures uno pensionario sint.

Grave offences were punishable by expulsion, rustication, etc., and those
who
33
committed only “minor offences” were liable to penalties of extreme
severity. Thus we read:
Quicunque in aliqua parte officii sui negligentior fuerit, et aliquem e magistratibus bene
admonentem non audiverit, aut insolentem se ostenderit, si ephoebus sit verberibus sin ex
ephoebis excesserit decennali victu careat et uterque praeterea poenitentiam declamatione
tostetur.

The text is corrupt, but the meaning is clear. A marginal note suggests the
obvious correction that decemdiali should be read for decennali. The deans
superintended, even if they did not inflict, corporal punishment when it was
ordered.
Another code of statutes was drawn up in 1554, but was never sealed, and
thus did not become effective. I need not quote the text which, on tutorial
matters, does not differ materially from that of 1560. The draft contains a
clause to the effect that the master of the College was not to take more than
four pensioners as his pupils, a fellow who was a master of arts or of some
superior degree was not to take more than two, and no one else was to take
a pensioner as a pupil. The word “two” however has been crossed out and
“one” substituted. From this it would seem that the question of how many
pensioners it was desirable to admit was already a matter of debate.
In 1560 new statutes were granted to the College, and its constitution as
then
34
settled remained practically unaltered till 1861. In this code the
foundation is described as including a master, sixty fellows, four chaplains,
sixty-two scholars, and thirteen sizars or gyps, namely, three for the master
and one for each of the ten senior fellows. Henceforth scholars were elected
annually in the spring, from undergraduates already in residence. By a
gracious provision, whose disappearance in 1861 I regret, it was ordered
that forty of the scholarships should be specifically associated with the
name of Henry VIII, twenty with that of queen Mary, and two with that of
Thomas Allen as pre-eminent benefactors. Pensioners and subsizars were
also admissible to the Society on conditions. If fellow-commoners dined at
the high table, as seems likely, they may have been reckoned extra
numerum. Every student under the degree of master of arts was required to
have a tutor, thus regularizing the position of fellow-commoners,
pensioners, sizars, and subsizars as members of the College, and bringing
them under the same rule as scholars.

The regulations in point are as follows:
Est ea quidem ineuntis aetatis imbecillitas ut provectiorum consilio et prudentia necessario
moderanda sit, et propterea statuimus et volumus ut nemo ex baccalaureis, discipulis,
pensionariis, sisatoribus, et subsisatoribus tutore careat: qui autem caruerit, nisi intra quindecim
35dies unum sibi paraverit, e collegio ejiciatur. Pupilli tutoribus pareant, honoremque paternum ac
reverentiam deferant, quorum studium, labor, et diligentia in illis ad pietatem et scientiam
informandis ponitur. Tutores sedulo quae docenda sunt doceant, quaeque etiam agenda instruant
admoneantque. Omnia pupillorum expensa tutores collegio praestent, et intra decem dies
cujusque mensis finiti aes debitum pro se ac suis omnibus senescallo solvant. Quod ni fecerint,
tantisper commeatu priventur dum pecunia a se collegio debita dissolvatur. Cautumque esto ne
pupillus quispiam vel stipendium suum a thesaurariis recipiat vel rationem pro se cum eisdem
aliquando ineat, sed utrumque per tutorem semper sub poena commeatus menstrui a dicto tutore
collegio solvendi fieri volumus.... Pensionarios ut studiorum socios in collegium recipiendos
statuimus; sitque in illis recipiendis ratio morum ac doctrinae diligenter habita; magistris artium
aut superioris gradus unum, baccalaureis autem nullum omnino concedimus. Nemo illorum
admittatur nisi a decano seniore et primario lectore examinatus.

In time, serious discrepancies between the statutes and the practice of the
College grew up. Some, but not all, of these were removed in 1844, when
the statutes were revised. The sentence above quoted “magistris artium aut
superioris gradus unum, baccalaureis autem nullum omnino concedimus”
was then struck out.
In 1861 new statutes were given to the College: these contain no mention of
pensioners, but merely prescribe that no bachelor or undergraduate shall be
without a tutor. The present statutes of 1882 similarly direct that no member
of the College in statu pupillari shall be without a tutor.
Except
36
by accident, we have no record before 1635 of the names of the
tutors of the various students, but it is probable that at first the master
regularly entered some undergraduates as his own pupils: certainly Whitgift
did so, and so too did some of his successors. It seems most likely also that
by 1560 it was already usual for the master to assign a student to that fellow
who was to act as his tutor, though of course regard must always have been
paid to the wishes of a parent or guardian in this matter. This remained the
ordinary custom for perhaps two hundred years.
Some information on tutorial affairs in the sixteenth century may be
gathered from an account-book kept by Whitgift, covering parts of the years
1570 to 1576, and containing statements of the charges he made as tutor:
the names of thirty-nine men are given. In the history of Trinity College
which I wrote for my pupils some years ago, I published a few of these

bills. I give here a few details illustrative of the many matters with which a
tutor was then concerned.
The payment made to him as tutor varied in different cases, but 6s. 8d. a
quarter for a sizar, 10s. for a pensioner, and 13s. 4d. for a fellow-commoner
were usual sums. In a few cases there are records of an admission-fee to the
College
37
or a fee for entering into commons: the normal payment for this
was 15s. for a pensioner, and 20s. for a fellow-commoner—there is no
mention of any such charge in the case of a sizar. The cost of the silly
ceremony by which the senior undergraduates initiated a freshman, known
as his salting, was charged in the bills, and varied from 8d. for a sizar and
1s. 4d. for a pensioner to 4s. for a fellow-commoner. The charge for
matriculation appears to have been 4d. for a sizar, 1s. for a pensioner, and
2s. for a fellow-commoner.
Of course the cost of the purchase of books comes in most of the accounts.
Aristotle, Plato, Sophocles, and Demosthenes constantly appear among
Greek writers, Homer and Xenophon only once; Cicero, Caesar, Sallust,
and Lucian occur often among the Latin authors, Livy only once. Euripides
and Horace are noticeable by their absence. I have not observed any
mathematical books. Works by Seton and Erasmus are frequently
mentioned. Among English books we have a prayer-book charged at 1s., a
service-book at 1s. 8d., a bible at 9s., and a testament at 2s. The charge for a
bible in Latin was 7s. and for a new testament in Greek 2s. A Greek
grammar cost 1s., 1s. 2d., or 1s. 4d.; a Hebrew grammar 1s. which seems
cheap. Paper was charged 4d. by the quire and 2s. 6d. by the half-ream: the
cost of a bundle of pens and an inkhorn was usually 4d. or 6d.
Clothes
38
appear to have been expensive, but naturally the cost varied widely
according to the status of the student. Apparently at that time the wardrobes
of men were fairly extensive: the prices of the various articles are set out in
full. I hesitate to distinguish academic gowns from other robes, but the
charge of 4s. to John Waring, a pensioner, for his gown and square cap, as
also the charge of 2s. 6d. for making a gown and hood for Phillip Harrison,
another pensioner, must, I think, be taken to refer to academic costumes.
The cost of a surplice to Richard Therald, a sizar, was 4s., but to Henry
Gates, a fellow-commoner, was as much as 11s. 7d.

As to amusements, the richer students seem to have kept or hired horses at
considerable cost. Horse-hire to London varied from 4s. to 8s.; to Lincoln
from 3s. 6d. to 4s. 8d. Bows and arrows constantly appear in the bills—the
price of a bow ranging from 1s. 4d. to 3s. Tennis was another popular
amusement of the day. The court stood on the site of the north end of the
present library, and the keeper of the court was regarded as a college
servant; there are no charges in connection with the bats, balls, or use of the
court.
It may be interesting to notice that coals were used regularly as well as
wood:
39
they were sold at 1s. 3d. a sack. Candles were charged at either 3d.
or 4d. a pound. Among miscellaneous things 6d. was charged for an hour-
glass; 4d. for a mouse-trap; 10d. for a scabbard for a rapier; and 10s. for a
lute. A set of singing lessons cost 3s. and a set of dancing lessons 6s.
Sickness appears to have been common. In general we have no record of
the duration of illnesses, and the charges for doctors and chemists varied
widely. The charge for plucking out one tooth seems to have been 1s. 4d.,
but for two teeth the dentist reduced his charge to 1s. a tooth.
We get another aspect of student and tutorial affairs in the next century (in
1659) contained in a long letter from which I gave extracts in the history of
the College to which I have already referred. Robert Creighton, pronounced
Crickt-on, of Somersetshire, a Westminster boy and a scholar of the House,
was then a candidate for a fellowship. At the time there were in residence a
good many zealots, introduced into the Society under presbyterian or
Cromwellian auspices, and one of these, a year senior to Creighton, was
also a candidate for a fellowship. Just before the election some of the
scholars were playing tennis in the college court when the ball by chance
struck one of them in the eye. On this Creighton called out “Oh God, Oh
God, the scholar’s eye is stroke out,” whereon his competitor accused him
to
40
the authorities as a profane person who took God’s name in vain; and as
confirmation added that he never came to the private prayer meetings of the
students. By good luck the master was Wilkins, afterwards bishop of
Chester, who owed his appointment more to the fact that he had married
Cromwell’s sister than to his devotion to the doctrines of the Independents.
It is clear that he disapproved of the complaint, but he considered it prudent
to summon a meeting of the seniority to hear the case and examine

witnesses. Creighton’s tutor, Duport (who gave us our large silver salt-
cellar), spoke up for his pupil, and thereon the master said that the charge
looked like malice, and it did not matter much if Creighton did neglect to go
to the private prayer meetings of undergraduates since he never failed to go
to chapel and to his tutor’s lectures. He then proposed, if we may trust our
authority, that the seniority should at once reject the informer and his
friends, and elect to the vacant fellowships the accused and his friends, and
so it was done. Such were elections then!
It is satisfactory to add that public opinion in the College was against those
who trumped up this ridiculous charge, and on the day after the election the
following notice was found on the screens. “He that informed against
Ds Creighton deserves to have his breech kickt on.” An amusing glimpse of
life
41
under the Commonwealth. Note that the tutor gave lectures to his
pupils, and from the tutorial point of view observe the esteem gained by
regular attendance thereat.
No obligation to take pupils seems ever to have been imposed on fellows,
though a pupil once taken could not be transferred. This, and the fact that
scholars were elected only from students already in residence, made it
undesirable to retain any rule to the effect that a fellow should not have
more than one pensioner as a pupil. Hence in time those who liked tutorial
work and did it well were allowed to have more than one pensioner pupil,
and gradually the bulk of the entries came to be made under a
comparatively few tutors.
The average annual entry of students at Trinity during the years 1551 to
1600 was fifty-one, during the years 1601 to 1650 was fifty, and during the
years 1651 to 1700 was thirty-nine. During the years 1701 to 1750, it sank
to twenty-seven: this diminution being partly due to the Bentley scandals.
During the years 1751 to 1800 the average annual entry was thirty-seven,
during the years 1801 to 1850 was one hundred and sixteen, during the
years 1851 to 1900 was one hundred and seventy-four, and during the years
1901 to 1913 was one hundred and ninety-nine.
Let us see how the men were divided among the tutors. From April to
December
42
1635, twenty-eight students were admitted who were distributed
among seventeen tutors, of whom eleven had only one pupil and none had

more than four pupils. Taking every tenth year thenceforward, we find that
in 1645, there were (excluding ten fellows intruded by order of parliament)
fifty-seven entries; of these fifty-one were divided among ten tutors. In
1655, there were fifty-three normal entries divided among twelve tutors; in
1665, forty-three entries divided among six tutors; in 1675, forty-nine
entries divided among twelve tutors; in 1685, thirty-four entries divided
among five tutors; and in 1695, twenty-eight entries divided among four
tutors. In 1705, there were twenty-nine entries, of these twenty-eight
students were divided among three tutors. In 1715, there were fourteen
entries divided among six tutors; in 1725, thirty-four entries divided among
twelve tutors; in 1735, twenty-eight entries divided among six tutors; and in
1745, twenty-one entries divided among eight tutors.
In 1755 there were only two fellows acting as tutors, namely S. Whisson
and J. Backhouse. Thenceforth there were definite tutorial “sides,” each
under one tutor or joint tutors, a tutor being appointed to a side when a
vacancy occurred; and every admission to the College being made on a
designated side. In effect the work of a tutor was now regarded as being of a
character
43
which should occupy a man’s whole energies, and it was generally
held that a tutor, while he held office, had not, and ought not to have, leisure
during term-time for independent work. From 1755 to 1822 there were two
sides. In 1822 a third side was created. In 1872 one of the sides (being the
lineal successor of Backhouse’s side) was divided into two. These four sides
are to-day designated in the college office by the letters A, B, C, D; side A
being that created in 1822, sides B and D being the two made out of the
successor of Backhouse’s side, and side C being the lineal successor of
Whisson’s side. [In the pre-war days of 1914 side A was under Dr Barnes,
side B under Mr Laurence, side C under Mr Whetham, and side D under
Dr Fletcher.]
Proceeding by decades in the same way as before, the entries on each of the
two sides (denoted by C and BD) which existed from 1755 to 1822 were in
1755, nineteen and ten; in 1765, four and six; in 1775, twenty-one and
twenty-four; in 1785, eighteen and twenty-nine; in 1795, twenty-nine and
seventeen; in 1805, forty-two and twenty-six; and in 1815, fifty-one and
thirty-six. From 1822 to 1872 there were three sides (denoted by C, BD, A):
the normal entries on these were in 1825, forty-two, fifty-five, forty-one; in
1835, forty, forty-five, fifty-three; in 1845, fifty, sixty-eight, forty-nine; in

1855,
44
fifty-three, forty-eight, fifty; and in 1865, fifty-eight, nineteen, sixty.
Since 1872 there have been four sides (denoted by C, B, D, A) which were
made approximately equal: the normal entries on these were in 1875, forty-
one, forty, forty-four, forty; in 1885, forty-nine, forty-four, forty-five, forty-
eight; in 1895, forty-eight, thirty-eight, fifty, fifty-one; and in 1905, fifty,
fifty-three, fifty, fifty-seven.
Until 1755 the number of pupils in residence in any one term assigned to an
individual tutor was not large, and a tutor interested in any particular aspect
of a subject likely to be studied was generally available: hence it was
usually possible for a tutor to give personally the teaching and guidance
required by his pupils. There were then no lecture-rooms in College, so
probably all instruction was given in the tutor’s rooms and was informal in
character. With the establishment in 1755 of sides, this system of teaching
required modification, and in the course of the latter half of the eighteenth
century it became the custom for a tutor to supplement his teaching by the
services of another fellow or other fellows. These officers, known as
Assistant-Tutors, were appointed and paid by individual tutors; they
lectured regularly, took an important part in the life of the Society, and
occupied a recognized position.
A marked development of the system of formal lectures is indicated by the
erection
45
in 1835 of a block of four large and four medium-sized lecture-
rooms. No other important changes were made for another thirty years, and
until 1868 instruction remained normally organized by sides; indeed it was
only by arrangement that lectures on one side were open to men on the
other sides, though in fairness it must be added that an arrangement for
throwing them open was made as a matter of course whenever it seemed
desirable. The retention to so late a date of appointments by sides was due
to the fact that the finances of the four sides were then kept as separate
accounts.
This scheme, clumsy and illogical though it was, might have worked fairly
well as long as the great majority of honour men read nothing but
mathematics, classics, and perhaps theology, but it was condemned by the
fact that the authorities allowed it to be superseded in practice by an
elaborate system of private tuition paid for by the individual students. With
the introduction of new subjects (like law, history, and various branches of

science) and the development of the corresponding triposes, it became
necessary to recast the scheme of teaching if adequate college instruction on
such subjects was to be provided. The earliest appointment of a college
lecturer (as contrasted with an assistant-tutor nominally attached to a
particular
46
side) was made in 1868, his lectures being open to all students of
the Society, and his stipend not charged on the funds of a particular side.
This was soon followed by the placing of all educational appointments and
finance in the hands of the College without regard to sides; and shortly
afterwards the lecture-room accommodation was considerably extended.
About this time a further step was taken by throwing most of the advanced
lectures open to members of other colleges. Thus in a few years instruction
by tutorial sides was replaced by college lectures and class-work, and then
this, to a large extent, by teaching organized on a university basis,
supplemented by individual and catechetical instruction in college: with
this, the custom of using private tuition has largely disappeared. Ultimately
the title of assistant-tutor was dropped; the last appointment under that title
was made in 1885, but from about 1870 we may say that practically the
duties of an assistant-tutor were those of a lecturer. Thenceforth tutors also
took their share of lecturing on subjects connected with their own lines of
study, and did not confine their instruction to their own pupils, though for a
year or two lectures on elementary mathematics and classics to freshmen on
each particular side survived as a historic curiosity. These changes led to the
existing scheme under which tutorial and tuition duties are separated, and
thus
47
the giving of direct instruction to his pupils is not now necessarily part
of the duties of a tutor.
The sequence of tutors on each side has been published, and I am sorely
tempted to add various anecdotes on the way in which some of these
officers fulfilled their duties, but such additions lie outside the object of this
essay.
Of course during this long period there have been bad as well as good
tutors, but I think everyone will admit that on the whole the system has
worked well. Its special characteristic is a personal relation between the
tutor and the pupil, materially strengthened by constant intercourse and by
the fact that practically all the correspondence with the parents of the pupil
passes through the hands of the tutor: experience shows that the tutorial

influence has not been weakened by the fact that in most cases direct
instruction is now given by other lecturers.

17 The history of the University prior to 1546 covers some three centuries and a half,
that is, about as long a period as has elapsed since 1546.

48
CHAPTER III.
THE WESTMINSTER SCHOLARS.

he relations between Trinity College and Westminster School have
t always been of an intimate character. Under the Elizabethan statutes of
the two foundations a limited number of boys from the school were
entitled, if duly qualified, to election to scholarships at Trinity, and later an
attempt was made to extend the privilege to fellowships. The whole matter
is now one of ancient history, but it may be interesting to put on record
some of the facts connected with it.
The school at Westminster owes its foundation to queen Elizabeth. Of
course the abbey is many centuries older, and in a sense so is the school, for
a grammar-school (in addition to the choir-school) had been attached to the
medieval monastery, though doubtless it existed only at the pleasure of the
monks. When Henry VIII created the diocese of Westminster with the
former abbey as its cathedral, he also established a school connected with it.
The diocese soon disappeared, and later the church and buildings were
given
49
by queen Mary to the Benedictines. The arrangement made by Mary
was in turn annulled by Elizabeth, who, shortly after her succession
founded the collegiate Church of St Peter, divided into two branches, one
ecclesiastical and the other scholastic, the whole being placed under the rule
of the dean and chapter. Thus Elizabeth is rightly designated as the founder
of the present school, though a link with the past has been preserved in the
fact that the sequence of headmasters dates by custom from 1540. The
buildings were divided between the two sides of the College; for the
scholastic side, one part of the monastic dormitory was made into a school-
room, the granary was turned into a school dormitory, and the boys were
allowed the use of the refectory for meals.

The queen interested herself in the school she had established; its
connection with particular colleges at the universities was suggested by the
precedents of Winchester and Eton, and it was natural that she should desire
to associate it closely with the Houses at Cambridge and Oxford which had
been founded by her father. There is some reason to think that the details of
the arrangement made were due to Bill, the first dean of Westminster, who
was at the same time master of Trinity and provost of Eton; a fortunate
pluralist!
On 29 March 1560, Elizabeth gave new statutes to Trinity College,
Cambridge,
50
and in statute 13, dealing with the sixty-two scholars of the
College, she directed as follows:
Sumantur autem potissimum et eligantur ex eorum numero, si modo idonei et ceteris pares
reperiantur qui Schola Regia Westmonasterii educati ... sint.... Ex aliis regni partibus ac locis
indifferenter ad numerum supplendum qui maxime idonei videbuntur, semper sumantur.

In June 1560, she gave statutes to the Collegiate Church at Westminster, and
in statute 6, dealing with the forty scholars of the school, she directed that
three scholars from the school should be elected annually to the foundation
of Christ Church, Oxford, and three to that of Trinity College, Cambridge.
It is said that the queen did not ratify these statutes. Be this as it may, in the
following year, on 11 June 1561, she sent to Trinity College letters patent
referring to the Westminster statutes as indicating her wishes in the matter,
and expressing her desire that the Society should select as many scholars
from Westminster as was possible. This then was the position in 1561, and
it was recognised these letters were binding and conferred rights on duly
qualified Westminster scholars.
Throughout the three centuries of the existence of these rights, candidates
usually preferred the Christ Church studentships, which, being tenable
under certain conditions for life, were much more valuable than Trinity
scholarships,
51
since the latter ran out in less than seven years. Perhaps too
the boys were attracted to Christ Church rather than to Trinity by the fact
that there they formed a larger proportion of the whole Society than in
Henry’s foundation by the Cam. Further a boy elected to Christ Church
entered sooner into the emoluments of his studentship than a boy elected to
Trinity—the latter not being admitted to his scholarship until the next

annual election of scholars which took place in the following spring,
usually some six months after he had commenced residence.
There were only forty scholars at Westminster and a provision for the
election from them every year of six scholars to the two universities was
more than ample. Thus in 1561 one scholar was elected to each university,
during each of the six following years, 1562–67, two scholars were elected
to each university, in 1568, six scholars were for the first time presented,
and each university took three. In 1569 the school again presented three
boys for election at Trinity, but the master, Whitgift, refused to elect more
than two, alleging that there were not vacancies in the House for more than
that number. Thereon the scholar or his friends appealed to Sir William
Cecil, the chancellor of the University. Correspondence ensued, but the
Society refused to give way on the particular election. On the general
52
question the College addressed a letter18, dated 3 July 1569, to Cecil
entreating him to interpose with the queen to lighten the burden imposed on
Trinity by the royal statutes, and asserting that the Westminster scholars
took up so many places as to act to the detriment of other and more worthy
students. The crown assented to this proposal, and it was agreed that
thenceforth three scholars should be chosen every third year, and not
necessarily more than two in the other years.
This arrangement lasted but a short time, for a year or two later, perhaps in
1575, Goodman, dean of Westminster, petitioned19 the lord treasurer to
confirm or re-enact the original statutes whereby three Westminster scholars
were to be elected each year to each of the two universities. The petition
was granted, and, I conjecture, was the occasion of the letters patent sent by
the queen on 7 February 1576, to Trinity College, Cambridge, and Christ
Church, Oxford, wherein she repeated and explained her former
injunctions. In these letters she stated that Westminster scholars were not to
be allowed to remain at the school after attaining the age of eighteen, and in
regard to their coming to one of the universities she directed:
Quamvis cupimus plurimos e nostris Discipulis Westmonasterii ad Academias in dicta Collegia
53quotannis promoveri, tamen ne incertus sit omnino numerus, sex ad minimum, videlicet, tres in
Ecclesiam Christi Oxonii et tres in Collegium Trinitatis, singulis annis, si aut tot loca vacua ...
aut tot idonei e nostris Discipulis Westmonasterii reperti fuerint, admitti volumus; Plures autem
optamus, si ita praefatis Electoribus commodum videbitur.

In fact, however, the former custom of electing three scholars every third
year and two scholars in each of the other years continued until 1588 after
which it became usual, though the custom was not invariable, to elect at
least three scholars to each university each year. During the forty-seven
years from 1561 to 1607 inclusive, one hundred and thirteen scholars in all
were elected from Westminster to Trinity, of whom forty became fellows.
In 1603 James I came to the throne. He interested himself in the school and
was prepared to intervene in its interests or what he regarded as such. The
earliest case of difficulty in the new reign occurred at the election in 1604
when the king directed the master of Trinity, Nevile, to whom in fact he was
under some obligations, to take a boy, by name Albert Moreton, as one of
the scholars of Trinity20. The boy was ignorant, and Nevile politely but
definitely refused to accept him. The matter was not urged further, and
though
54
on some occasions later the Trinity electors consented under
pressure to alter the order in which candidates were elected, their right to
reject on the ground of ignorance was not again disputed. Three years later,
the College was faced by a more serious question concerning its connection
with Westminster.
In 1607, James I addressed letters patent to Trinity College, in which after
referring to the letters patent already mentioned, he ordered them to be
strictly observed, and intimated that thereafter the scholars of Trinity should
be taken chiefly from Westminster school if duly qualified. He then
continued that he observed that the scholars who had been elected to Christ
Church were notable for their learning and subsequent distinction, and
regretted that this was not so in the case of the scholars elected to Trinity, a
fact which he attributed to their want of succession to fellowships and to
their leaving the University as soon as they had taken the degree of master.
Accordingly he ordered that Westminster scholars at Trinity who had taken
the bachelor’s degree should, unless deficient in learning or good conduct,
be promoted to fellowships in preference to other candidates. He further
ordered that any Westminster scholar in the College, who had not been
admitted to a fellowship before taking a master’s degree, might remain
resident an additional two years during which time he should be eligible to
a55fellowship, subject to lawful exceptions. The letters are dated 27 June
1607, but it would appear that they were not presented until September of
that year.

Deep resentment was felt at this order, for Trinity attached great importance
to the desirability of electing as fellows the best candidates, though it was
admitted that candidates from places where the House had property had
statutable claims for special consideration. The College took immediate
steps to protect itself, and in support of its position addressed to the
chancellor of the University, the earl of Salisbury, a petition accompanied
by a reasoned memorandum. These documents are not dated, but I think
may be assigned to the Michaelmas term, 1607.
The petition is briefly to beg the chancellor to assist the College in
obtaining a review of the letters patent with the object of maintaining its
ancient privileges and former liberties; the letters patent being said to be
contrary to the intentions of its founder, and to its statutes21. The wording is
humble and courtly.
The memorandum that accompanied the petition is more outspoken. It is
long, but it is so interesting that I shall venture to quote from or describe it
at56 length. I conjecture that it was composed by Nevile. It contains fourteen
assertions or arguments to the following effect:
1. It is inconvenient that so large a College as Trinity should be restrained unto a particular
School, and it can be easily shown that other Schools have furnished Trinity with students of
much better hope and proof than Westminster hath done or is likely to do, for the whole number
of Westminster boys who are eligible to both Universities are but forty, and there are seldom
more than eight or nine candidates for the six vacancies at the two Universities.
2. To alter or subvert the ancient liberties of one of the chiefest Colleges in Christendom and to
divert from the uses intended by his Majesty’s Predecessors a foundation like Trinity in order to
satisfy private humour or under the pretence of benefitting an ordinary School is a great
indignity to his Majesty’s Sacred Person, Power, and Prerogative.
3. The suggestion that boys coming to Trinity do not become Fellows, Doctors, Deans, and
Bishops as do boys entering Christ Church is untrue, frivolous, and unfair: it is untrue, because,
in fact, of the existing sixty Fellows of the College, more than one-sixth have come from
Westminster, and at Trinity the custom is to prefer the worthy: it is frivolous, for the fact of a
man having once been at school at Westminster is not the cause of his advancement to the
position of a Doctor, Dean, or Bishop: and it is unfair, “for although Christ Church in Oxford be
a most magnificent and royal foundation, and hath bred in all ages as learned, wise, and worthy
prelates as the kingdom hath, yet Trinity College in Cambridge hath had no less royal founders,
and if we fail in our Westminster brood (as otherwise I hope we do not) either the defect hath
57been in themselves or else (which rather we suppose) it may be imputed to those good means
the other College hath, being also a Cathedral Church and having Cannons both richly beneficed
and highly dignified which doth enable them to Doctorships, Deaneries, and Bishopricks—a
great blessing of God that our poor College wanteth.”

4. “Howbeit in that kind of fruitfulness we also are not destitute of God’s gracious blessing; for
... besides Doctors in all faculties to the number at the least of sixty, Deans to the number of
eleven, Publick Professors to the number of ten, the two Archbishops, Canterbury and York, the
most Reverend Fathers Whitgift and Hutton, and seven other principal Prelates of this kingdom,
namely, Fletcher of London, Still of Bath and Wells, Babington of Worcester, Redman of
Norwich, Rud of St Davids, Bennet of Hereford, and Gouldesborough of Gloucester, all of them
simul et semel Bishops of this kingdom ... are such a demonstrative instance as we think no
other College in either University can afford the like—and not one of these chosen out of
Westminster School.”
5. “It is to be doubted whether there can be the like success if our Elections out of a private
School shall be indubitate and certain; we rather think there can be no readier means to make
Droanes and Loyterers in Colleges, nor any worse prejudice or more deadly bane unto learning
and vertue, then when the rewards, and means thereof are tyed to persons, times, and places, and
made regular and certain.”
6. The proposal would do a grave injustice to other students who might be men of great
abilities.
7. The proposal would defeat the express wishes of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary, and
Elizabeth, all of whom are to be reckoned as founders as well as benefactors of Trinity College.
588 and 9. The proposal would be contrary to the existing statutes of the College, and to the oaths
taken by the Master and Fellows on admission.
10. Preferences of this character are injurious to the particular School, the College, and the
whole University, and a constant source of discord and contention.
11. “It is also against the Policy and common-wealth of a kingdom to restrain and abridge
places and preferments originally meant, founded, and hitherto with good success employed for
the common benefit of that kingdom to a private School: for benefits and privileges are to be
amplified and not restrained; publick rewards are not to be applied to private places, purposes,
or respects.”
12. Interference with the intentions and directions, of previous benefactors is contrary to public
policy, and tends to prevent future benefactions.
13. This implies that Nevile had accepted the office of master of Trinity College under
promises which rendered it inequitable that the college statutes should, during his tenure of the
post, be altered against his wishes, but it is stated that this argument, though noted, is not to be
pressed.
14. This raises some technical points, especially as to whether statutes of a College given under
the great seal can be varied by letters patent without explicit reference to the clauses altered or
repealed.
The memorandum concludes with a request that the College may have liberty to ask the opinion
of the Judges on the questions raised, and thus obtain the benefit of the king’s “most equal just
and princely laws.”

The use of the personal pronoun in one or two cases and the reference in the
thirteenth paragraph to Nevile suggest that the document was composed by
him.
59
I cannot find out anything about the result of the petition, but I

conjecture that nothing came of it. Nevile however was not inclined to let
the matter rest, and no doubt the esteem felt for him at court and his
personal popularity were of great assistance to the Society in the
negotiations that followed.
It was a few months later, in May 1608, at the annual election of scholars at
Westminster that Nevile took the next step in defence of the college
position. The following account of the election is based on a paper
preserved at Westminster:
The Master of Trinity College (Nevile) refused to take the oath which was required, previously
to the election, by the Law of the land as well as by the local Statutes. He also refused to elect to
his College the three Scholars ordered by the Letters Patent of the Crown. The oath however
was taken by the Dean of Westminster (Neile) and the Dean of Christ Church (King), as well as
by their assistants, and by the Master of the School (Ireland). The Dean of Westminster then
demanded, in writing, that the election should proceed; when the Master of Trinity College
referred to some composition by which he stated he would be governed. To this the Dean of
Westminster replied, that he knew of no such composition, and that, if it had existed, it was
necessarily set aside by the Letters Patent of Queen Elizabeth and of His Majesty; whereon the
Master of Trinity College observed, though with much protestation of his loyalty, that he did not
allow the validity of the Letters Patent.
The other Electors, however, having agreed to proceed, the nine Scholars who had been
examined were called in to hear the Statute read for the election to the two Colleges. The Master
60of Trinity then said that he had not places enough vacant in his College. [In fact in April he and
the Seniority had filled up all scholarships then vacant and pre-elected men to succeed to
scholarships as vacancies occurred.] To this it was replied, that the want of vacancies had been
occasioned by pre-elections of supernumerary Scholars, that the words of the Statute were
disjunctive, and there was a clause commanding such Scholars to be received if they were fit.
The Master of Trinity College did not deny the fitness of the candidates, but still refused to
elect. In this wrangling the whole morning was wasted.
At length they went to dinner. After this, a fear having been expressed, that this “distraction”
might become troublesome to their friends, “perhaps to His Majesty,” and “not without some
obloquy” to themselves, the Master of Trinity College proposed a private settlement, naming
October for it. The suggestion was favourably received by the Electors other than the Dean of
Westminster. The latter however affirmed, that with his consent less than three Scholars should
never be taken by Trinity College and three by Christ Church if the School produced so many fit
Scholars: and as to that part of the Letters Patent, which related to the election of Westminster
Scholars at Trinity College to Fellowships, he required that they should be taken in preference to
others, if their qualifications were equal; stating at the same time, that the clause declaring them
eligible to Fellowships two years after their degree of A.M. had arisen solely from the practice
of pre-electing so many Fellows, that for three or four years together no election took place; and
the Westminster Scholars at Trinity College were driven out to seek a better fortune elsewhere.
The Master of Trinity College allowed that the practice of pre-elections was wrong; and it was at
length agreed that if this were discontinued, that part of the King’s Letters concerning the
61eligibility of Westminster Scholars two years after their degree of A.M. should not be urged
against the local statute of Trinity College, De Gradibus Suscipiendis. Thereupon the Master of

Trinity College took for his College as Scholars three candidates, to wit, Hacket, Shirley, and
Herbert.

The three scholars so taken obtained fellowships in due course, Hacket
became chaplain to James I, Charles I, and later to Charles II, suffered cruel
persecution under the commonwealth, and at the restoration was made
bishop of Lichfield: the Bishop’s Hostel was erected at his cost. An incident
in Shirley’s career is chronicled below (see p. 223). Herbert was the well-
known poet and divine. If the above account is reliable, and there is no
reason to doubt its accuracy, the most important question in dispute, namely
the preferential right of Westminsters to election to fellowships at Trinity,
was left open. Nevile however had no intention to allow the matter to drop,
and having made his protest at Westminster, he now secured the good
services of his friend and Cambridge contemporary, Richard Bancroft,
archbishop of Canterbury, who undertook to act as mediator in drawing up a
“friendly and full” settlement of the question.
An agreement, drafted I feel confident by Nevile, was submitted to the
archbishop and, after he had made a few alterations, was accepted by the
dean and chapter of Westminster. The seniority of Trinity College, on
562 September 1608, passed a minute that the matter “be referred to our
Master against the 13th of October,” and the deed is so dated, but its
execution must have been delayed since there is a minute of the seniority,
8 December 1608, ordering that the composition with Westminster should
be engrossed and sealed at the audit so as to be delivered before 1 February
1609.
The deed embodying this agreement was made between the dean and
chapter of Westminster and Trinity College, and provided that the College
should take yearly three scholars from Westminster School to be scholars of
the College, and that there should be no pre-elections of supernumerary
fellows to the prejudice of the Westminster scholars if deserving of
fellowships. In consideration of these definite obligations the dean and
chapter of Westminster agreed that the letters patent of 1607 should never
be urged against the College by the dean and chapter or the schoolmaster or
ushers or scholars of Westminster, and that the College should have such
full power to elect fellows as had been previously enjoyed, excepting only
the practice of pre-elections. To the deed is appended a statement that it was
made with the privity and approbation of the archbishop of Canterbury, the

earl of Salisbury (lord high treasurer of England and chancellor of the
University of Cambridge), and of the earl of Northampton (the lord privy
seal),
63
all of whom signed it. This conclusion of the affair may be regarded
as a personal triumph for Nevile.
The arrangement was submitted to the king who in a letter directed to the
College approved it, but required that the Westminster scholars each year
should be granted seniority over other scholars of Trinity of their year and
not be hindered by pre-elections: he did not however withdraw or rescind
the previous letters patent. I have never seen the text of this letter but its
contents are indisputable, and there are various subsequent references to it.
The obligation to allow this seniority to the Westminster scholars was
henceforth recognized by the College as binding on it.
The advisers of Trinity seem to have been doubtful whether it would be
admitted that this second letter implied the rescission of the letters of 1607,
and since there was every reason to avoid raising the question whether royal
letters or mandates could be set aside or modified by private arrangements,
it was wise to let matters run on as long as the agreement of 1608 was
carried out by the school authorities. There is however a memorandum,
ascribed to January 1610 in the State Papers, showing that “the recent grant
by the King for the students of Trinity College, Cambridge, to be chosen
from the Westminster scholars is prejudicial to the interests of Trinity,”
which
64
seems to imply that further negotiations took place. I have not seen
the memorandum and know nothing more about this than here appears.
During the sixteen years following this settlement, that is, from 1608 to
1623 inclusive, fifty-eight scholars were elected from Westminster to
Trinity, of whom sixteen became fellows.
In 1623–24 a fresh dispute occurred. It would appear that while Trinity
carried out its undertaking relating to the election of scholars from
Westminster, it again began to pre-elect fellows with the object, it was said,
of preventing any claim being made on behalf of the Westminster scholars
in residence. Whether this was done in self-protection against unjustifiable
claims or was a deliberate breach of the agreement of 1608 we do not know.
An appeal to the crown on behalf of the school ensued, and on 7 September
1623, the king sent letters patent to the College as follows:

Trusty and well beloved we greet you well. Being much interested in the prosperity and well-
fare of that our College which is both our immediate Foundation and the fairest in all our
kingdoms, and furnished, for the most part with the extracions of our own free-school at
Westminster, we cannot but be very sensible of any alteration in the government of the same.
Whereas therefore we are given to understand that younger students of that College have of late
years been totally disheartened in their studies by a new and unwarrantable device of pre-
65electing more Fellows than there are places vacant at the time of that Election and the Scholars
of our own School (in whose loyalty and affection we are so much interested from their cradles)
strangely discouraged and disgraced by being cast in their seniority behind all the Scholars and
Fellows in their several Elections though never so exceeding in learning and education, we
straightly will and require you that from this time forward ye do forbear all manner of pre-
elections whatsoever as the pest and bane of all learning and succession; and that also you bear
that regard and respect to the Scholars of that our own Royal School in giving them in all such
elections respect and precedency which we are informed they fully deserve before all other of
what country soever. Lastly, whereas we are given to understand that heretofore a corrupt
custom hath crept into that our College of turning elections into particular nominations of the
Master and the several Seniors which smells altogether of partialitie and corruption we do
straightly will and require you the said Master of our College of whom we conceive a very good
opinion, to see that hereafter all elections as well of Scholars as of Fellows be done according to
the local statutes of your College and carried about with that pluralitie of voices therein
required.

What reply (if any) the College made or could make I do not know, but
presumably the answer was not satisfactory as these letters were followed
by the appointment of royal commissioners to enquire into the Westminster
elections. There is extant a letter from the master of Trinity (Richardson)
dated 9 June 1624, to one of the commissioners, asking to be excused from
attending
66
the usual election of Westminster scholars, on account of poor
health. Probably this was regarded as an impertinence, and he must have
been reprimanded since we have a letter dated 26 June signed by the master
and six of the senior fellows, deprecating the royal displeasure, offering the
most humble submission, promising to obey in anything that his majesty
might command, but begging that present compliance might not be drawn
into an example against the College. Richardson and James I died in March
1625, and the enquiry seems to have been then dropped.
The election in 1636 was interesting. It is said that among the candidates
was Cowley who had already written various poems and a comedy showing
distinct ability. The story runs that the boy failed badly in grammar, and the
Trinity electors, insisting that this was conclusive, rejected him as a
Westminster scholar, but offered him an ordinary scholarship at Trinity,
which he accepted. Against this are the fact that he had been entered at
Trinity as a pensioner in April, a few weeks before the election at

Westminster, and the improbability that the electors would have drawn such
a distinction between Westminster and other scholars of the House. Still
old-time anecdotes are not to be lightly rejected: at any rate Cowley came
into residence in due course and was made a scholar in the same term as the
four
67
boys taken from Westminster by the electors, these five students being
the only scholars elected by the College in 1637.
During the seventy-seven years from 1624 to 1700 inclusive, three hundred
and fifty-six scholars were elected from Westminster to Trinity, of whom
one hundred and twenty-six became fellows. During the fifty years, 1701 to
1750, out of one hundred and eighty-seven Westminster scholars at Trinity
sixty-two became fellows; during the fifty years, 1751 to 1800, out of one
hundred and eighty, thirty became fellows; and during the fifty-six years,
1801 to 1856, out of one hundred and seventy, four became fellows.
Throughout this long period the friendly relations between the College and
the school suffered no change.
In 1727 there was a curious echo of the controversy of 1607. A strange
suggestion had been made, apparently with the tacit approval of the
authorities of Westminster, that new statutes should be given to Trinity
constituting the dean and chapter of Westminster Visitors of the College,
and it was decided by the advocates of the movement to open the campaign
by asking the dean of Westminster to call the attention of the master of
Trinity (Bentley), to the “Letters Anno Quinto Jacobi Primi.” Bentley
replied on 5 March 1727, denied their validity and argued that even if
originally
68
valid, they could not be pressed after more than a century during
which time “they had never been acted upon”: he added that, if antiquated
letters were still binding, there were various matters in which he had
powers, whose exercise might prove singularly inconvenient to those who
had raised the question. This was really conclusive, but further
consideration had shown the inherent weakness or folly of the original idea,
and the chapter was wise enough to proceed no further with the matter.
Shortly afterwards, probably at the following election at Westminster,
Bentley is said to have referred to the dean’s communication, and remarked
that the authority of the letters of 1607 would doubtless have seemed
stronger, at any rate to the dean’s predecessor (Atterbury), if not to the
chapter, could they have been described as “Anno Primo Jacobi Tertii”—an

irrelevant remark, but it carried a sting, for Atterbury’s devotion to the
cause of the Pretender was deeply resented by the government.
From an unknown date until the early years of the nineteenth century,
Westminster scholars at Trinity were allowed the privilege of wearing
academic gowns of a cut different from those of other undergraduates and
further distinguished by having on the sleeves a violet button with a silk
loop.
69
The gowns of all pensioners in the University were then black and
(except for those worn by Westminsters) cut to a common pattern. The
Westminster distinction was discontinued when the present system of
different gowns for different Colleges was introduced.
During the first half of the nineteenth century the numbers in the school fell
seriously, and well-founded complaints were made about the standard of
scholarship attained by the scholars elected to the universities. In 1856, as
the result of negotiations, initiated by Whewell, the arrangements with
Trinity were completely recast, and it was agreed on 5 December 1856 that
the school should abandon the right of Westminster boys to election to
scholarships at Trinity, and that in filling up open emoluments in Trinity,
former Westminster boys should enjoy no preference. In consideration of
this release, the Society undertook to establish at its own cost, exhibitions,
not more than three to be awarded each year, for boys elected from the
school who were otherwise qualified for admission to the College; every
such exhibitioner, if so deserving, to be eligible for a college scholarship
tenable with the exhibition. This was approved by the queen in council on
25 June 1857. It was further agreed that the Westminster exhibitioners were
to be placed on the same footing as exhibitioners elected by open
competition
70
before commencing residence. The mode of election is settled
by the school statutes, but it would seem that the Trinity electors have no
right to demand intellectual attainments beyond those required at the time
for admission to the College. The exhibitions are not now confined to
scholars of the school.
So ends the story of Westminster Scholars at Trinity College, Cambridge.
During the two hundred and ninety-six years from 1561 to 1856 inclusive,
one thousand and sixty-four scholars had been elected from Westminster to
Trinity (or say 3.6 a year), of whom two hundred and seventy-eight (or say
one in four) had become fellows. In conclusion I may add that in 1869 in

virtue of the powers given by the Public Schools Act, 1868, the dean and
chapter of Westminster, the dean of Christ Church, Oxford, and the master
of Trinity College, Cambridge, created a new Governing Body in whom the
governance of the school has been since vested.

18 See Life of Whitgift by J. Strype, London, 1718, pp. 13, 14 and Appendix, pp. 7, 8.
19 Life of Whitgift by J. Strype, London, 1718, Appendix, p. 9.
20 State Papers, Domestic, 1604, p. 185.
21 According to Dean Peacock, royal letters and orders, at variance with college
statutes, were binding only if explicitly or tacitly accepted by the Society. That may
have been technically correct, but it is very doubtful if Tudor or Stuart sovereigns
would have admitted it.

71
CHAPTER IV.
THE SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO
UNDERGRADUATES.

his is an account of a famous struggle some eighty years ago between the

t authorities and the undergraduates of Trinity College on the subject of
attendance at chapel. The story is not to the credit of the authorities, but,
for what it is worth, here it is.
There is a prelude to it concerned with a controversy in 1834 between
Thirlwall, later the statesman-bishop of St David’s, and Wordsworth, then
master of the House, which raised the question of the advisability of
compelling undergraduates to be present at religious services in College. At
that time regular attendance at chapel was required—as for centuries
previously it had been—from all students as a matter of discipline, and the
rule in force on the subject was embodied in a college order of 22 April
1824, as follows:
Agreed by the Master and Seniors that every Undergraduate not having an aegrotat or dormiat
do attend Morning Chapel five times at the least in every week, or four times at the least
including Sunday; and the same number of times in the Evening, under penalty that the week in
72which anyone shall not have so attended be not reckoned towards keeping the Term of such
Undergraduate—unless such omission be repaired by extra attendance the week following.

Absentees were punished, and those who offended frequently were liable to
expulsion.
Until the era of the Reform Bill some regulation like this was accepted as a
matter of course, but when, in that period of enquiry, all things were put to
the proof, doubts as to its wisdom began to be voiced. In 1834 Thirlwall,
then assistant-tutor to Whewell, in an open letter dated 21 May, while

advocating the admission of dissenters to the University, lamented the
constant repetition in college chapels of a mechanical service, believing the
practice to be detrimental to the interests of religion: he further expressed
the opinion that attendance at chapel services should be voluntary. He
referred to a then recent statement by Wordsworth in which the latter had
said “the alternative is not here between compulsory religion (as it is called)
and any other religion, but between compulsory religion and no religion at
all,” and on this remarked:
I cannot indeed draw such delicate distinctions as my friend seems to make in this passage; for
as the epithet compulsory applied to religion appears to me contradictory, the difference
between a compulsory religion and no religion at all is too subtle for my grasp. But if for
73religion we substitute the word service, which would probably better express his meaning, then I
should quite agree with him, that, in this case, a voluntary service would soon be changed into
no service at all: that is, the persons who are now compelled to attend, if they were left at liberty,
would stay away. And this is the very reason why I think it would be better that they should be
allowed to do so.

The argument was amplified in a second letter dated 13 June. This was
skilful enough as a piece of dialectics though hardly likely to convince
opponents.
That an officer of the college should express such views and in this way
was regarded by Wordsworth as scandalous, and five days after the
publication of the first letter, without asking for any explanation, he, with
the consent or approval of Whewell and the two deans (Thorp and Carus),
removed Thirlwall from his office of assistant-tutor. This arbitrary act was
generally resented in the Society even by those who disagreed with
Thirlwall or thought that he had been indiscreet in his advocacy; some too
considered the act unstatutable, but Thirlwall refused to appeal to the
Visitor, and shortly afterwards left Cambridge on his appointment, in
November 1834, by the lord chancellor, to the important living of Kirby-
under-dale in Yorkshire.
Two years later, in 1836, while the matter was still a subject of debate,
Carus
74
was made senior dean. He was a kindly man, leader in the University
of the school of thought associated with Simeon’s name, but, whether
rightly or wrongly, was regarded as unsympathetic by those who did not
think as he did on religious questions. Carus detested the view taken by
Thirlwall, and far from conciliating college opinion, which had been
outraged by Wordsworth’s action, urged the seniority (a Board consisting of

the master and the eight senior resident fellows to which, under the
Elizabethan statutes, the government of the College was entrusted) to re-
draft the rule of 1824 and make clear or stiffen the penalties for non-
obedience. The seniority agreed, and on 7 February 1838, issued the
following order:
Agreed by the Master and Seniors, that all Undergraduate Scholars, and Foundation Sizars do
attend Chapel eight times at the least in every week, that is twice on Sunday and once every
other day; the Scholars, on pain of losing ipso facto their statutable allowance for Commons,
and such additions as have since been made by the College in the way of augmentation to the
Commons, for every week when there has been a failure of such attendance as is above
described; and the Sizars, on pain of incurring ipso facto an equivalent deduction in money from
their allowances.
Agreed also, that a like attendance be required from all other Undergraduates; and that in case of
failure, the Parties so offending be forthwith admonished by the Deans; and if, after such
admonition, irregularity be persisted in, notice be sent by the Dean to the Tutor, that a warning
75from him also may timely be given: after which, if both these means shall fail in producing
regularity, the offender shall be reported by the Dean to the Master (or, in his absence, to the
Vice-Master) to receive a formal admonition from him, in the presence of the Dean, a record of
which shall be preserved: and finally, in all cases where such formal admonition shall have been
incurred three times, the offender shall ipso facto be removed from the College, either entirely,
or for one or more Terms, according to the circumstances of the case; a record of this sentence
being also preserved.
Authority is given to the Deans to grant occasional leave of absence, on special application
made previously, but not otherwise. Also on any casual failure of attendance, it is allowed to
Deans to accept (in order to make up the deficiency) an equivalent attendance on other days
during the same week only; any failure on Sundays to be compensated by attendance twice on
other days.

According to college tradition, which came to me from C. W. King, an
undergraduate of the time, a deputation of scholars, who remonstrated on
the severity of these sanctions, was informed by Carus that attendance at
chapel was not so much a duty as a privilege, which was valued the most by
those who were oldest and therefore best qualified to form an opinion on
the subject—a boomerang argument which obviously was dangerous unless
the fellows themselves attended chapel with the regularity desired from
undergraduates.
On this rebuff, certain students formed a Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty
76
to Undergraduates. Its founders issued a notice asking whether what
was forced on undergraduates was practised by dons; and that facts might
speak for themselves, they announced that they would issue marking-sheets
showing the attendance week by week of the fellows in chapel. Copies of

these marking-sheets were put (surreptitiously) on the college screens, sent
to London clubs, and widely circulated. All efforts by the deans to discover
the authors or the printer employed failed; I understand, however, that
W. J. Conybeare, G. E. L. Cotton, J. S. Howson, C. L. Rose, and
C. J. Tindal were its chief promoters, and that the printer was Metcalfe of
9 Trinity Street. Copies of these marking-sheets are now very rare, but a
few years ago one came into the market which I was fortunate enough to
secure. It is bound in blue calf, stamped with the college arms having as
supporters two undergraduates in knee breeches waving their caps, and with
the motto Nemo me impune lacessit.
The first sheet is for the week ending 17 February 1838, and shows the
attendances, morning and evening, of the master and the eighteen fellows
then in residence. Each of the two deans attended ten times, but they were
in a peculiar position, for it was their duty, as the Society pointed out, to go
twice a day and therefore fourteen times in each week. Only one of the
other
77
fellows, Perry, later bishop of Melbourne, complied with the rule
imposed on undergraduates, four fellows went only once, and four not at
all. To this sheet the Society appended the following note:
Does then this new regulation of the Master and Seniors proceed from any religious motive? Do
they practice (sic) what they force on the Undergraduates? They are very regular in their
attendance in Hall, but why are their places vacant in Chapel?

The next week showed a slight improvement in the attendances. The
Society congratulated itself on this, and in some general remarks indicated
what it expected from the fellows, copying these from the notices on the
subject issued by Carus. It should be said that in the sheets those who were
ill or away from Cambridge, were marked with an aeg or abs, so any such
explanation of the absence of the others from chapel was impossible.
In the third week the improvement continued, and three fellows in addition
to the master and the deans complied with the rule, but this was the high
water-mark of attendance, and after all it did not come to much. The Society
expressed its gratification at this, which it was pleased to treat as the result
of its efforts, and at the same time issued the following notice:
A prize for general regularity, and good behaviour when in Chapel, has been instituted by the
78Society, who are as anxious to reward merit as they are to punish immorality. But whilst they
thus wish to instil into the minds of the Fellows those Religious feelings which, owing to a bad
education, they may possibly be without, the Society most distinctly declare that they shall not

be guided merely by an outward show of religion. It is not, therefore, enough to go merely eight
times a week to Chapel, and when there to utter the responses so loud as to attract attention, or
otherwise disturb the prayers of Undergraduates. Such conduct will at all times be severely
punished.... For convenience of those members of Trinity College now residing in London, six
copies of this publication are sent weekly to each of the University Clubs there.

In the fourth week, apart from the indefatigable Perry and the two deans, no
one came up to the prescribed standard. On this result the Society remarked:
The Society regret much that during the last week great laxity has prevailed among the Fellows
in general with regard to their attendance in Chapel. This is the more to be lamented, as they had
been for the two previous weeks so much more regular than usual. This irregularity cannot
proceed from ill health, for they have been constantly to Hall, although they are not compelled
to go there more than five times in each week. The Society, however, still hopes that in the
ensuing week they will be able to make a more favourable report both of their attendance in
Chapel, as also of their good conduct when there. As was before stated, any Fellow who shall,
owing to any wine-party, or other sufficient reason, be prevented from attending, will be
excused on sending a note previously to the Secretary of the Society, and his absence will be
79counted as presence. [The last seven words were a quotation from a note by Carus.] It is agreed
by the Master and Seniors that all Undergraduates do go eight times at least each week! Why
then do they not set us a better example?

These publications were widely disseminated and led to the production of a
number of epigrams and lampoons which were scattered broadcast in the
University. The Society appended to this sheet a note that its members had
“no connexion whatever with any of those abusive and profane publications
which have been so industriously circulated during the last two weeks.”
The sheet for the week ending 17 March, announced the success of the
movement, though in this return only Carus and Perry came up to the
standard. Appended to the sheet were the following notes:
The Society in laying the first list of this month before the public, have much reason to be
pleased with the success of the work which they have undertaken, for they have been informed,
on very good authority, that the Cruelty System will not be continued more than a week longer,
but that the Master and Seniors have determined to come to a new Agreement about Chapels....
If this should be the case, the end which the Society had in view will be accomplished, and the
weekly publications will be discontinued, until called again into life by some new act of Cruelty
upon the much enduring Undergraduates, but not otherwise. The Fellows have been very
irregular during the last week, in their attendance at Chapel; so much so that only two of the
80whole number in residence have kept the number, which the Undergraduates are compelled to
keep, on pain of being ipso facto rusticated, either entirely, or for one or more terms. And yet
one Member of Trinity College was really sent away during the past week (who had always
been seven times each week before) because he had the courage to object to compulsory
attendance at Chapel, especially from those men who had set him such an example!

In the course of the next week a printed notice appeared on the screens
reducing the number of compulsory attendances in chapel to two on
Sundays and four during the week. The paper, type, and setting look as if
this were issued by the authorities. I have, however, seen a contemporary
letter in which it is said that this notice was in fact a forgery: the suggestion
being that the men were tired of the joke, and invented this way of
terminating the episode. I cannot say whether the deans modified their rule,
and the question of the genuineness of this notice must be left undecided. It
is true that no extant minute of the seniority exists about any new
regulation, but the records of the proceedings of that body are so imperfect
that no conclusion can be drawn from this.
The Society in publishing its last sheet, namely, that for the week ending
24 March, concluded with the following class list and notes:
The examination of the Fellows is now finished: and in arranging the different classes the
81Secretary has attached to each person’s name his number of marks, in order to do away with any
appearance of favour shewn more to one than another, as is too often the case in other
Examinations.

First Class.
*Carus 72
Perry 66
*Barnes 50
Second Class.
Heath 42
Wordsworth Senior 38
Thorp 35
Whewell 34
Blakesley 30
Third Class.
Peacock 28
Thompson 19
Brown 17
Dobson 13
Martin 12
Last Class.
Wordsworth Junior 9
Sedgwick 5
Field 4
Donaldson 3

Burcham 0
Walsh 0

* The two gentlemen marked with an asterisk
are respectively Senior and Junior Dean, whose
duty it is to go twice every day to Chapel.

The Prize Medal for regular attendance at chapel and good conduct when there, has been
awarded to Mr Perry, who has passed an examination highly creditable to himself and family.
He was only 18 marks below the highest number which he could possibly have gained. It is,
therefore, to be hoped Mr P. will be more regular and do still better next term. With respect to
the two Gentlemen who are not classed, the Secretary need hardly say that he does not envy
them their feelings on the present occasion. In consequence of the New Agreement, the Chapel
Lists will ipso facto be discontinued for the future.

In the above list the master is designated as Wordsworth Senior. The prize
was awarded to Perry the future bishop, but instead of the promised medal
he was given a bible. This was secured for the College in 1906, and now

rests
82
in our library. It is bound in calf, stamped with the arms and supporters
assumed by the Society, and bears the inscription “From the
Undergraduates of Trinity College to the Rev. Charles Perry, M.A., as a
mark of affection and esteem for the good example which he set them and
the rest of the College by his constant attendance at Chapel.” I have been
informed that to each of the two fellows who did not attend at all there was
sent a small bible with an inscription therein of the Society’s hope that its
presence among his books might in the future encourage him to perform
tasks which he believed to be important even though he found them
unpleasant.
The doggerel verses to which I have alluded as appearing in connection
with the struggle were, as far as I have seen them, poor stuff as literary
productions, and some were highly improper. The author of one of the worst
of them was discovered and expelled from the College, 12 March 1838. I
possess copies of four or five of these productions, their value consists
entirely in giving us stories then current about dons and things academic—
stories, I may add, which appear generally to have had no foundation in
fact. The best set of verses, supposed to be addressed on Saturday evening
by a man to his bedmaker, is a parody of Tennyson’s May Queen. It begins:
“You must mind and call me early—call me early, d’ye hear? For I in
morning
83
chapel to-morrow must appear,” and on the whole runs easily.
There is nothing in these squibs which deserves remembrance or needs any
further notice here.
There ends the story, and no comments on it or the actors in it are needed. It
may be added as a postscript, that for a long time subsequent to this incident
some attendance at chapel was required from all who had no good reason to
ask for exemption, and that as time went on the requirements gradually
grew less. The question of making attendance at chapel compulsory on
those who have not yet fully attained years of discretion is admittedly
difficult, and made more so by the fact that while such attendance is
approved and rigorously imposed every day of the week at most public
boarding schools on lads up to the age of eighteen or nineteen, it is regarded
as unthinkable in the case of young graduates of twenty-one or so. Trinity

College finally adopted the view advocated by Thirlwall, and to-day
attendance at chapel services is voluntary.

84
CHAPTER V.
THE COLLEGE CHAPEL.

he College Chapel, as it appears to-day, is described in many of the guide-

t books which are pressed on the casual traveller in Cambridge. I am not
here concerned with the accounts of it there given, for in this paper I
intend to deal with little beyond its history and traditions.
It is a matter of common knowledge that the present chapel was built under
the auspices of the Tudor queens, Mary and Elizabeth, on the site of the old
chapel of King’s Hall. Let me begin by tracing briefly the history of these
successive buildings, and their connection with college developments.
King’s Hall owed its origin to the establishment of scholars in the University
of Cambridge by Edward II in 1317, and was put on a permanent footing by
Edward III in 1337. The original home of the Society was a large two-
storeyed house, built of wood and thatched, bought from Robert
de Croyland, and situated on the ground now occupied by the walks and
grass plot in front of the chapel. No chapel or oratory was connected with it,
and
85
the Society worshipped in All Saints’ church which then stood on the
green in Trinity Street facing our present chapel.
In 1375 the College began the erection on the ground to the north and west
of its house of a larger building comprising a cloister court with various
extensions. The west side of this court, some hundred and twenty feet long,
is still standing and faces the bowling green: the other three sides and the
extensions have been destroyed. These buildings were of three storeys, built
of stone, brick, or rubble, and tiled: they were finished about 1438, and the
old mansion of Robert de Croyland was then pulled down. Into the inner

quadrangle of this cloister court there projected from the middle of its
western face a wooden erection some fifteen feet long by fifteen feet wide,
built in 1419–24 over what is now the junior combination room, and
containing on its upper floor an oratory which opened on to a gallery over
the cloisters on that side of the court. A list of the service-books, plate, copes
and other vestments, altar-cloths, curtains, gold embroidery, etc., kept in this
oratory in 1479 is given in my booklet of 1917 on King’s Hall. The building
was small and the Society continued to use All Saints’ church for its more
important services.
The
86
desirability of having a chapel large enough for all college purposes was
obvious, and in 1464 the Society began the erection of such a building, on
ground beyond the eastern extension of the cloister court. This new chapel,
which covered part of the site of our present chapel, was about a hundred
feet long and thirty feet broad, that is roughly half the length of and the same
breadth as the present chapel: it was built of stones, squared and supplied
ready for use, which according to Caius came from the large banqueting hall
of the Castle then being pulled down and probably by purchase from King’s
College to whom these materials had been granted. It was wainscotted, and
was fitted with stalls and carved woodwork; the high altar, like that of the
older oratory, was of wood and the interior walls above the wainscotting
were plastered and whitewashed; the sum spent suggests that the fittings
were not elaborate. The work was finished in 1499, but probably the chapel
was used from 1485 onwards: of course the plate, service-books, etc., were
removed to it from the old oratory.
Trinity College, on its foundation in 1546, naturally made use of this chapel,
87
for it was the only one available on the site22 of the new College. It is fairly
certain that it was then fitted up with additional seats and probably
redecorated: the provision of a new organ and a new lectern happen to be
specifically mentioned.
Edward VI ascended the throne in 1547, and barely had the interior of the
chapel of King’s Hall been adapted to the needs of the new foundation than
the College was required to remove all popish traces from it. The altar and
steps were taken down, and a communion table set up, most likely in the
middle of the chapel. The books, copes, vestments, and altar ornaments
which had come down from old times were sold: they realized no less than
£140. 8s. 8d., and the magnitude of the sum obtained in such unfavourable

conditions shows that the services must have been conducted with
considerable pomp. There is to-day in the library a standing censer boat,
ascribed
88
to the end of the fourteenth century or the early years of the
fifteenth century, with traces on it of its ancient gilding, but there is no record
as to how or when it came to us. King’s Hall did in fact own among its
chapel vessels a “ship of silver” which probably means a censer boat, and it
may be that this is the vessel in question. With this possible (but doubtful)
exception all our medieval chapel plate has gone.
When in 1553 Mary succeeded her brother, the Roman religion was restored,
and the chapel again adapted to the old forms of worship. Perhaps
remonstrance was made by the master, Bill, who had been appointed in 1551
on Redman’s death and was a strong Anglican: at any rate he was deprived
of his office. The expulsion was dramatic and apparently physical, for as he
was sitting in his stall in the chapel two members of the House, Mr Boys and
Mr Gray, approached and “removed him ... in a rude and insolent way.”
Declining any contest he retired to Bedfordshire, and was succeeded as
master by Christopherson, the queen’s chaplain and confessor.
Mary recognized the interest taken by her father in Trinity and, in
furtherance of his design, decided to rebuild the College on a comprehensive
plan. She issued orders about this on 24 October 1554, and it was arranged in
1555 that the first large task undertaken in connection with it should be the
erection
89
of a new chapel. Preliminary work on this was commenced in 1556
and it was then expected that the building would be finished by the end of
1557, but by October of that year the walls were only half-way up: delays
ensued and ten years elapsed before the building was completed. The old
chapel was unroofed in 1561, and cannot, it would seem, have been used
after that date: it is possible it was shut up in the course of 1557, but early in
that year it was still in use, for the royal commissioners in January 1557
complained of the absence of lights on the altar and of coals to cense the
sacrament. During the years from the closing of the old chapel to 1567 it is
uncertain whether the services were held in College or in one of the town
churches.
It was originally intended that the new chapel should be a hundred and fifty-
seven feet long and thirty-three feet broad, the east end being flush with the
street frontage of the Great Gate. The roof was to be curved, open, and
relieved with fretwork and oak pendants. There was to be an east window, a

west window, eleven windows on the south side, and twelve on the north
side from which it follows that it was to be a detached building save for its
abutment on staircase E in the Great Court.
It was designed to contain two rows of stalls made after the pattern of those
at90 King’s College, sixty-eight in the upper row with misereres, divided by
pillars, and with double crests above, and a lower row of stalls not so
divided. Unfortunately the contractor got into money difficulties and sold
much of the timber which had been bought for the intended roof and stalls,
causing the work to fall into arrear.
After the accession of Elizabeth, changes in the plans of the new chapel were
made, the length being increased to two hundred and five feet, thus making it
project beyond the east side of the Great Court. In 1564 the walls of the
building were finished and plastered, and the date 1564 cut on the east gable
together with the text from the Vulgate, Matthew xxi. 13, Domus mea domus
orationis vocabitur, which in the authorized version runs: “My house shall
be called the house of prayer” and is followed by the clause “but ye have
made it a den of thieves.” Wags have sometimes continued the inscription by
adding the second clause on the chapel either of Trinity or of St John’s as
their inclinations led them. The roof, put on in 1565, is of a style earlier than
this date, and Willis came to the conclusion that it is the actual roof of the old
chapel of King’s Hall supplemented by additional timber to fit it for the
larger building: I like to think that we still worship under the roof which
sheltered our predecessors more than four centuries ago.
In
91
the year last mentioned, 1565, the stones for the pavement were brought
from Croyland Abbey and maybe some are still there. In the next year the
interior fittings were taken in hand, and the organ screen erected. In the
following year, 1567, the windows were glazed with white glass bearing
inscriptions, coats of arms, and heraldic badges such as the fleur-de-lys,
portcullis, and rose: the organ (a small instrument) and the pulpit were
moved from the old chapel, and the stalls put in. It would seem that the
wainscotting and wall-seats in the present antechapel are of this date, and
possibly came from King’s Hall. Moving from west to east in the completed
building there were in succession an antechapel sixty-five feet long, an
organ-screen eight feet deep, the chapel seats along some seventy feet, a
space of twenty-four feet, the communion table, and a space of thirty-six feet

free of encumbrances. The work was finished by Michaelmas, 1567. There is
no record of the building having been consecrated.
Mary died in 1558, and on 20 November, the Sunday following the
proclamation of Elizabeth, Bill, the former master of the College, preached
at St Paul’s Cross in London; the next Sunday, his successor Christopherson
preached there. Probably the men disliked one another, and certainly took
different views of the position. Some scandal was caused, an the upshot of
the
92
affair was that Christopherson was sent to prison, while Bill returned to
Cambridge, restored to the mastership.
Bill, a discreet courtier, was a favourite at court, and held, under Elizabeth’s
favour, the provostship of Eton and the deanery of Westminster together with
the mastership of Trinity; it was probably due to his influence that Elizabeth
in 1560 issued a commission to procure materials and labour for completing
the chapel which had been begun on her sister’s initiative. Baker praised his
prudence and temper while master, and added that “if he has shown any
frailties or failings here, allowances must be made for difficult times and
potent courtiers that are not easily resisted.” In my opinion the services to the
College of its first three masters, Redman, Bill, and Christopherson, were of
the greatest value, and have hardly received that recognition from posterity
which they deserve.
On Bill’s death, the crown offered the mastership to Beaumont, a calvinist
whose views were more pronounced than Cecil supposed at the time of the
appointment. Beaumont sympathized with the puritan party, whose numbers
in the University were now rapidly increasing, but did little to guide them or
to check their intolerance which constantly offended public opinion.
The description of the windows in the new chapel does not suggest that
figures
93
or catholic symbols appeared thereon, but, none the less, the
“malcontents” thought them objectionable and in November 1565, broke “all
the windows wherein did appear superstition.” In the same term occurred the
famous surplice disturbance23. The puritans objected to the use of the
surplice in chapel on Sundays, Saints’ days, and their eves, and on a certain
“Sunday (in Dr Whitgift’s absence), Mr Cartwright and two of his adherents
made three sermons on one day in the chapel so vehemently inveighing
against the ceremonies of the church that at evening prayer all the scholars
save three [together with one of the chaplains] (viz. Dr Leg, Mr West,

Whitaker’s tutor, and the chaplain) cast off their surplices as an abominable
relic of superstition”—a curious illustration of how little the calvinists
esteemed the value of academic discipline unless they exercised it
themselves. The organization of this demonstration was attributed to
Cartwright, their leader in the University and a fellow of the College; it was
probably due to the disapproval of his conduct in this and similar matters that
shortly afterwards he went out of residence for two or more years.
Beaumont died in 1567 and at his request was buried “with no vain jangling
of
94
bells nor any other popish ceremonies” in the new chapel, his being the
first interment in it. He is commemorated by a carving (somewhat difficult to
detect) of his face on the tenth principal in the chapel roof reckoned from the
east end—it is lettered R. B. Mr. He was succeeded by Whitgift and the result
of the subsequent bitter struggle between him and the puritans settled the
constitution and policy of the University till the middle of the nineteenth
century, but the battle was mainly fought in the senate-house and in London,
and is not specially connected with our chapel.
Alterations to the organ were made in 1594, and elaborate hangings placed in
the organ loft in 1604. Thenceforward repairs and reconstructions of the
organ followed one another every few years. The history of the instrument
has been published in pamphlet form, and I shall not again refer to its
successive enlargements. The west window was blocked up about this time
owing to the removal of King Edward’s Tower to its present position.
There is an account of college doings in chapel in 1635 in the following
memorandum sent to Laud, and endorsed by him as embodying matter which
he intended to examine during an intended visit to Cambridge in September
1636.
In Trinity College, they have been long noted to be negligent of the chapel and of prayers in it;
95the best come but seldom, and by their example the rest make small account of service. In some
tutors’ chambers (who have three or four score pupils), the private prayers are longer and louder
by far at night than they are at Chapel in the evening. Some fellows are there, who scarce see the
inside of the chapel thrice in a year, nor public hall, nor St Mary’s Church, and (they say) impugn
all.
A quire is there founded for Sundays and holydays, but the quiremen are so negligent and
unskilful, that, unless it be an anthem, they often sing the hymns no otherwise than in the
common psalmerie tune. And to mend the matter, they have divers dry choristers (as they call
them), such as never could and never meane to sing a note, and yet enjoy, and are put in to take
the benefit of those places professedly. They have a large chapel, and yet the boyes rows of pews

are placed just in the middle of the chapel, before and behind the Communion-table, which some
there are about to reform.
They lean, or sit, or kneele at prayers, everyone in a several posture as he pleases. At the name of
Jesus few will bow, and when the creed is repeated, many of the boyes, by some men’s directions,
turn towards the west door. Their surplices and song-books, and other furniture for divine service,
is very mean. The cloth that lies upon the table not worth 14d. He that executes, steps over the
exhortation and begins, Wherefore I pray and beseech you, &c. They use no Litany for the most
part, but in Lent only, and in Lent only upon Sundays, and when they say it, it is at the
Communion-table. They repeat not the Creed after the Gospel, and instead of the Magnificat and
the Nunc Dimittis, they will at pleasure (sometimes when the quiremen are present) sing the 23rd
or some other riming Psalm.... They have lately taken advice, and are about mending their chapel,
if it holds.
96Fellows ... (when of the degree of M.A.) and fellow-commoners, take themselves generally to
have a privilege to miss prayers, as well as the public table of the hall. From hence it comes to
pass, that so many of that ranke are to be founde at those times, either in taverns and towne-
houses, or at some other pleasant imployments, where they please.

Whether all this was true or not we cannot say, but at any rate in the
following year, 1636, the College spent a considerable sum on alterations
and decorations in the chapel. The communion table was removed to the east
end and the ground there raised, a pavement of stone and marble laid down,
the walls were panelled, and rich hangings provided. Charles I, with his son
the prince of Wales, visited the chapel in March 1642, and was much pleased
therewith: we read at this time of candlesticks, tapers, and a crucifix on the
altar; other references show that the ritual was high.
The next year 1643 saw a great change, for the parliamentary party secured
control of the town and district. The order compelling the use of the surplice
on certain days was now rescinded, and under Dowsing the chapel was
purged, the altar steps levelled, the altar taken away, and a wooden
communion table without rails set up in the middle of the chapel; the organ
and hangings were removed; and certain figures, painted on the walls at the
east end whitewashed. The zealots did not think the reforms had gone far
enough,
97
but no other changes were forced on the College, and a few months
later the Society made a money present “to some of Major Scot’s souldiers
who defended the chappell from the rudenesse of the rest.” A few years later,
on 12 March 1647, Sir Thomas Fairfax then in command of the district
came, and was received “in great state ... in the Chapel, he was presented
with a rich bible, and in the hall with a sumptuous banquet”—a pleasant
combination.

At the restoration, the original altar of 1643 was recovered and replaced at
the east end, a screen of rich mosaic work erected behind it, and as far as
practicable the chapel restored to its former appearance. Doubtless, however,
practices continued which to-day would strike us as unseemly, for I notice
that in 1665 “it was agreed that Dod have the place of keeping the dogs out
of the chapel.”
In the early years of the eighteenth century the condition of the fabric caused
anxiety; after only a little more than a century’s wear the roof was found to
be in a dangerous condition, and a portion of one of the external walls in
danger of falling. It was determined to place the building, inside as well as
outside, in thorough repair. Work began in 1706 and was nearly thirty years
in progress. The fellows and a few friends subscribed a large part of the cost,
and
98
the rest was paid out of corporate income. In the plan adopted, which is
associated with the names of Bentley and Cotes, the east window was
blocked, and the present stalls, baldachino, organ-screen, and wainscotting
erected: the design of the latter is excellent of its kind, though not altogether
suited to the architecture of the building. Some of the old stalls are said to
have been removed to St Michael’s church, and the tradition may be
accepted as probable. Later in the century, 1787–88, the roof was painted in
white and gold.
The number of residents in College in the early half of this century was
small, and probably the chapel was in regular use during most of its
restoration. A trivial incident at this time afforded some amusement.
Complaints had been made that Bentley—an illustrious scholar, genuinely
interested in promoting learning, but as master of Trinity arrogant,
unscrupulous, and dishonest—never went to chapel though required to do so
by the statutes. This was true enough, and he determined to silence his critics
by appearing again. But so long had he been absent that the door of his stall
had got fixed and could not be opened till the lock had been wrenched off.

Prof. Hughes has called my attention to some unpublished notes24 by a
friendly
99
visitor about the chapel services on Saturday and Sunday evenings
in the fourth decade of the eighteenth century. The writer says that
interpolated in the evening prayers were elaborate musical performances
sometimes involving two symphonies25 and two anthems in which the choir,
organ, and six violins took part; he also repeats more than once that the

building was crowded [by strangers] and the noise so great that little of the
service could be heard. Thus, to quote one instance, under date of 28 May
1738, he writes:
This evening I was at Trinity Colledge Chapple where there was so great a crowd that nothing
could be heard of the whole service, I could see the Readers lips go, but, not so much as heare the
least sound of his voice, and when Dr Walker read the 2d Leason could I only heare the sound of
his voice but not to distinguish one word. There was great difference in the Musick part from
what used to be, for the symphony was first by the Organ and then by 6 violins in 3 parts to all
which the Organ was the base. After the reading the first and 2nd Lessons, 3 men sang the [blank]
to which the Choire was the Corus. Before the Prayer for the King there was another Symphony
by the Organ, & Violins, and the Anthem was Sung by one man, to which the choir was likewise
the chorus.

Throughout most of the eighteenth century, a good many of the fellows
resident in Cambridge held livings in the vicinity. They were accustomed to
ride
100
out on Sunday to their cures, hold services, and return home to a
comfortable supper the same evening, but in general neglected their parishes
during the rest of the week. Thus if a parishioner died, the funeral was
deferred till the following Sunday; and if a marriage-service was to be held
in the village, it had to wait for a free Sunday. In these circumstances the
bride and bridegroom often settled the matter by coming into Cambridge for
the ceremony, and during the first half of this century our chapel was
constantly borrowed for such marriage services; after the Marriage Act of 26
George II, cap. 33, this use of it became illegal unless a special license were
obtained. Since that Act, it has been used only once for such a purpose,
namely, for the marriage of Miss Butler on 18 December 1901.
Coming to the nineteenth century, we have numerous notes about the chapel
and the services. At the beginning of this period the author of Alma Mater
(J. M. F. Wright, who commenced residence in 1817) gives an unfavourable
account of the services, saying that they were gabbled through as fast as
possible amid a great deal of talking. The first part of this statement may be
correct, but as to the second probably conversation was rare, and such as
took place, though not condemned by public opinion, was subdued and was
held
101
only in recesses, one of which was known as iniquity corner. In fact, we
may take it that the vast majority of the undergraduates acted as gentlemen
though they attended chapel reluctantly and merely as a matter of discipline.
Attendance was required at seven o’clock in the morning, not a convenient
hour, albeit considerably later than that usual in Tudor times.

In 1831 the fabric was again thoroughly repaired, the roof redecorated,
certain stalls elevated, desks at the east end constructed, and a new scheme
of lighting by candelabra introduced. A few years later, in 1838, the Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Undergraduates concerned themselves with
marking the attendance of fellows in chapel. That incident I have described
elsewhere.
In 1867–75 the building was again thoroughly overhauled, the south side
faced with stone, a porch, a new vestry, and a choir-room built, the organ
screen moved a few feet westward, the walls and roof painted, gilding used
freely on the panelling, the windows filled with stained glass, backed
benches and kneeling stools introduced for undergraduates, and the building
lighted with gas. During part of the time occupied by this restoration, the
College used St Michael’s church as its chapel.
According to the scheme of decoration, adopted on the advice of Lightfoot
and Westcott, if we proceed eastwards up the chapel we are supposed to note,
in
102
order, the frescoes on the walls (which represent old testament heroes and
teachers) and paintings on the roof (which illustrate the Benedicite), leading
up through Jewish history to the birth of Christ, and then, returning
westward, to have suggested to us, by the successive windows, the historical
development of Christianity and the growth of learning particularly in the
University and College. A man might worship many years in the chapel
before he discovered this design.
The panels in the sacrarium are replaced by intarsia work in which all the
woods used are of their natural colours. The sixteenth-century silver cross on
the communion table came from Spain. The wrought-iron gas standards here
and through the chapel are also worthy of note; fortunately they were
allowed to remain when the electric light was introduced. All this, as well as
the scheme of decoration of the antechapel, is described in guide-books with
more or less accuracy.
Probably the services were never rendered more effectively than in the years
following this restoration. Attendance on Sunday evening was required
unless absentees could urge conscientious or other good reasons for
exemption, but a large proportion of those who might have obtained
exemption did, in fact, take part in the Sunday services. More benches were
placed in the chapel than are there now, and the building, with every seat

occupied
103
and everyone (save a few privileged visitors) in a surplice,
presented a most impressive scene. Electric light was introduced in 1893,
and has added much to the comfort of congregations in winter evenings.
In former days members of the Society who died in College were not
infrequently buried in the chapel—a shocking thing to permit in a building in
constant use, though sanctioned by the custom of many centuries. There are a
good many tombstones scattered over the floor, and copies of all the
inscriptions have been published. I wonder how many members of the
Society know that among those here buried is one woman, bearing the
strange Christian name of Elismar. The last interment in the chapel took
place in October 1886, and further burials are now forbidden unless
sanctioned by the Home Office.
The building has always been used for various secular purposes, such as
elections to scholarships and fellowships; the admission of scholars, fellows,
and officers; the affixing of the College seal to documents, and the delivery
of declamations by students. Within recent years lectures in the antechapel
and an oration in the chapel have been delivered. I believe the view that a
church or chapel is intended only for the performance of religious services is
modern and unwarranted by history: at any rate our records give no authority
for it.

22 On the site acquired for the College were situated the buildings of King’s Hall,
Michael-House, Physwick’s Hostel, and some private hostels or boarding houses.
Members of private hostels used their parish churches. All the students in Physwick’s
Hostel were members of Gonville Hall, and used the chapel of that Hall. The members of
Michael-House used St Michael’s church: this House had been founded in 1324 by
Hervey de Stanton for a master and six fellows, who if not priests at the time of
admission, had to take orders within one year; and later two more fellows, three
chaplains, and four bible clerks were added to the foundation, which was intended for
secular clergy studying in the University. The church of St Michael was appropriated to
it, and rebuilt by its founder for use as its chapel. The fellows had in their House an
oratory, and in March 1393, the bishop of Ely granted them leave to build a chapel, but
their history and convenience alike made them wish to continue to use St Michael’s
church as their regular chapel.
23 Fuller’s History of Cambridge, reprint 1840, p. 265. Fuller mistakenly assigned the
disturbance to 1566–67 instead of 1565–66.
24 Since published in the Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, 22 May
1916, vol. xx, pp. 114–116.

25 When I first came into residence a survival of this interpolated symphony existed in a
long organ solo which preceded the anthem.

104
CHAPTER VI.
SOME COLLEGE TREASURES.

hose who live among beautiful surroundings and in constant touch with

t works of art are often apt to take their privileges for granted. Members of
Trinity are proud of the buildings of the College and the grounds in which
they are placed, and most of us know something of their history and
characteristic features. But with our art treasures there is less general
acquaintance, and so perhaps it may not be out of place to jot down a few
notes on some of them—chiefly pictures and plate—in which I take pleasure.
Of the contents of the library I say nothing, for a volume would be needed to
describe them even briefly. The illuminated manuscripts and the early
printed books attract most attention, but there are numerous other subjects in
which the library must be ranked among the most important in Great Britain.
I have often been told by undergraduates that they have never been in the
building except once when they signed the Admission Book. That is true
enough of some men, but those who are interested in rare and famous books
and yet never visit the Library neglect exceptional opportunities.
Of
105
oil portraits—in all nearly two hundred—of former members of the
College, we own a valuable collection, and they illustrate in a remarkable
way how many distinguished men have been educated here. Identification is
easy as labels are placed on most of the pictures. Unfortunately we have no
gallery in which they can be shown. Some are put in the hall, some in the
master’s lodge, some in the combination room, and some in the library,
lecture-rooms, etc. Those in the lodge are set off well, but the others are not
hung to advantage.

About twenty-five years ago a proposal was made to raise subscriptions for
an art gallery to be built along the edge of the river starting from the present
north end of the library and extending over the land now occupied by the
master’s stables and the end of his garden. At that time the proposal did not
receive much favour, but now I sometimes wonder if we were wise in putting
the plan on one side. Certainly we have more canvasses than we can exhibit
satisfactorily. The hall, too, would look a more dignified apartment if the
pictures, except for one or two on the dais, were taken away: recently their
temporary removal was necessitated by repairs to the woodwork, and the
improvement in the appearance of the room was noticeable. The general
effect
106
of such a clearance may be judged by a visit to the hall of the Middle
Temple in London. The dimensions of the body of that hall are the same as
ours, but instead of pictures on the side walls, each small oak panel bears an
armorial shield: these harmonise well with the architectural lines of the
building. Where, as is the case with our neighbours at St John’s, the
panelling is low and there is above it a big stretch of stone or painted wall,
pictures add to the effect, but this is not the case where the panelling is high.
Of all our pictures I suppose the one which attracts most attention is that of
Henry VIII which hangs over the dais at the north end of the hall: it was
given us by Robert Beaumont, who held the mastership from 1561 to 1567.
The artist was Hans Eworth, a Dutchman who lived in London circ. 1543–
75, and worked with or under the influence of Antonio Moro: the portrait
was taken from or founded on that of the king in the fresco painted by
Holbein in 1537 on a wall of the privy chamber in Whitehall palace. This
fresco, which was destroyed in the fire of 1698 and till then deservedly
treated as one of the art treasures of London, contained portraits of
Henry VII and Henry VIII with their queens, Elizabeth of York and Jane
Seymour. Holbein’s studies for the heads of the two kings have been
preserved, and are at Chatsworth and Munich. Most of the extant portraits of
Henry
107
VIII are copied from or founded on this fresco. Signs of deterioration
in the fresco were noticeable in the reign of Charles II, and by his orders it
was copied by Remée, a French painter then resident in London. The original
fresco was on each side of and above a fireplace or window. Instead of
depicting this, the artist represented this space as occupied by a pedestal
containing an inscription: his delineation of the faces of the sovereigns is
poor, but he has preserved Holbein’s general design. Two copies of the

reproduction are extant, one of which is in the royal collection and the other
at Petworth.
Hardly less notable than the presentation of our founder, and far more
valuable, is the charming portrait by Joshua Reynolds of the duke of
Gloucester (1776–1834) as a boy: the duke was a cousin of George III and
afterwards chancellor of the University. Reynolds wrote in his diary that the
boy sat for his portrait in March 1780 when he was four years old, and that
the finished picture was delivered in January 1788—the charge for it being a
hundred guineas. Horace Walpole praised it, but thought it “washy,” an
opinion not shared by modern critics who esteem it one of Reynolds’s
masterpieces. The picture was left to the College in 1843 by the will of the
duke’s sister, the Princess Sophia, with a request that it should be hung in the
hall. The legacy was due to the good offices of a freshman of the time—the
Hon.
108
Douglas Gordon, son of George, fourth earl of Aberdeen. He described
the circumstances attending the gift as follows:
When I went up to Trinity in 1842, I used to see a great deal of the princess.... [I was then] a
freshman full of admiration for my College of which I used to boast. One day the old princess
shewed me the picture, ... and asked if I thought it would look well in the Hall. On my saying
what a boon it would be, she very graciously said “You can tell Mr Whewell that I will leave it to
the College through you, and I hope you will see this picture placed in a good position.” At her
death I took it down to Trinity where I was still an undergraduate.

The portrait of queen Mary on the other side of the dais is a Spanish copy of
Antonio Moro’s famous picture which hangs in Madrid. The original is said
to have been given to Philip after his engagement to her; it presents her as a
woman of strong character but far from beautiful. When the marriage took
place, it was unkindly said by a Spanish courtier that whatever were the
faults of his master, it must at least be admitted that he recognized the
obligation of a gentleman to keep his word.
Of other pictures in the hall those of Tennyson (1809–92) painted in 1890 by
G. F. Watts, of the earl of Essex (1566–1601) painted in 1590, of Isaac
Newton (1642–1727) painted in 1725 by John Vanderbank, and of Francis
Bacon
109
(1561–1626) copied from Van Somer’s portrait in Gray’s Inn are
specially noticeable. Newton and Barrow (together with Pearson who is
mentioned below) played a leading part in the intellectual life in the
University towards the close of the seventeenth century, but I need not talk
here about this. Barrow, who was a mathematician and divine, had a ready
wit. When, previous to his admission to holy orders, he was examined on his

faith, the dialogue is said to have been as follows:—Chaplain: Quid est
fides? Barrow: Quod non vides. Chaplain: Quid est spes? Barrow: Magna
res. Chaplain: Quid est caritas? Barrow: Magna raritas. On which his
questioner retired in dudgeon, and reported that there was a candidate for
ordination who would only give him “rhyming answers to moral questions”:
but the bishop had the sense to recognize that truths can be expressed in
rhyme as well as in prose, and Barrow was ordained.
A very pleasing picture is that reputed to be of Byron: this looks like a
Raeburn, though it is ascribed to Thomas Lawrence: its history is doubtful,
but the absence of any peculiarity in the ear is prima facie evidence that it is
not of Byron. Another striking portrait is that of W. H. Thompson (1810–
1886) painted in 1881 by Hubert von Herkomer. When Thompson saw the
completed portrait of himself, he is said to have remarked, “Do I really look
as if I held the world so cheap” and in a print of it in the house of one of my
friends,
110
this is inscribed on the frame. I ought also to call attention to the
window portrait of Richard, duke of York (1411–60), the father of
Edward IV and Richard III, which probably comes to us from King’s Hall.
Among other paintings, which at present hang on the hall panelling, are
portraits of the following famous members of our College:—Edward White
Benson (1829–96) archbishop of Canterbury, Isaac Hawkins Browne (1706–
60), Arthur Cayley (1821–95), the earl of Derby (1826–93), Michael Foster
(1836–1907), Francis Galton (1822–1911), the earl of Halifax (1661–1715),
Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828–92), Richard Claverhouse Jebb (1841–
1905), Joseph Joachim (1831–1907) the musician, Thomas Jones (1756–
1807), Joseph Barber Lightfoot (1828–89) bishop of Durham, Frederick
Denison Maurice (1805–72), James Clerk Maxwell (1831–79), viscount
Melbourne (1779–1849), Matthew Raine (1760–1811), Adam Sedgwick
(1785–1873), Henry Sidgwick (1838–1900), Charles John Vaughan (1816–
97), Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901) bishop of Durham, John Westlake
(1828–1908), and William Whewell (1794–1866).
Of these, Raine, Jones, Halifax and Hawkins Browne lived in the eighteenth
century. The last-named is known to fame through having caused a change in
the family reigning in the two Sicilies. In fact, coming to Naples in his
travels
111
he danced at a court ceremony “with such inconceivable alacrity and
vigour” as to provoke universal amusement and amazement: in particular the
queen’s laughter was so immoderate that a miscarriage ensued. On such

events may the histories of dynasties and empires turn! He is described on
this occasion as pirouetting in a “dress of volcano silk with lava buttons”:
perhaps it is in this costume that he is depicted on our walls. Having related
this anecdote I must in fairness add that he was a poet of considerable ability,
a good talker in an age when the standard of conversation was high, and an
excellent judge of wine. Most of the portraits are, however, of celebrities of
the Victorian age. Of these, Melbourne and Derby were politicians; Benson,
Hort, Lightfoot, Vaughan, and Westcott represent the church; Westlake was a
lawyer; Jebb a scholar; Maurice and Sidgwick represent ethical philosophy;
while Cayley, Foster, Galton, Maxwell, Sedgwick, and Whewell, were men
of science.
Among the canvasses above the panelling are portraits of Richard Bentley
(1662–1742) the scholar, Edward Coke (1549–1634) the lord chief justice,
Cowley (1618–67) the poet, John Dryden (1631–1701) the poet, the earl of
Macclesfield (1666–1732), John Pearson (1613–86) bishop of Chester,
Robert Smith (1689–1768) the mathematician, and John Wilkins (1614–72)
bishop
112
of Chester. Wilkins is now almost unknown but he wrote some
interesting books, notably one on the ciphers employed in the civil war of the
seventeenth century. Another work of his on the possibility of a journey to
the moon, provoked the duchess of Newcastle to ask him where she could
find a place to bait if she tried the journey: “Madam,” said he, “of all the
people in the world I least expected that question from you, who have built
so many castles in the air that you may lie every night in one of your own.”
The pictures in the large combination room of Isaac Newton by Thomas
Murray, and of Matthew Prior (1664–1721) by Godfrey Kneller are good: the
former came to us from a descendant (Mrs Ring) of Newton’s favourite
niece, and its history is given in a letter from Charles Simeon to Mansel,
master of the College at the time of the gift. The other canvasses are too big
for a private apartment, but the portraits of the “proud” duke of Somerset
(1662–1748) by Nathaniel Dance, the marquess of Granby (1721–70) by
Joshua Reynolds, the duke of Gloucester by John Opie, the marquess of
Camden (1759–1840) by Thomas Lawrence, the duke of Grafton (1760–
1844) also by Lawrence, and the duke of Sussex (1773–1843) by James
Lonsdale, are of some repute: to these there was added in 1915 a portrait of
Arthur J. Balfour by P. A. Laszlö de Lombros.

Of
113
the peers mentioned above the names of Granby and Somerset are still
well known. Granby fought in the Culloden campaign, was colonel of the
blues (horse guards) at Minden, 1759; commander of the British contingent
in the campaigns of 1760, 1761, and 1762; and in 1766 became commander-
in-chief of the army. Delighting in danger, which even when in supreme
command he deliberately sought, brave to a fault, an excellent cavalry leader,
rich and lavishly generous, he was the idol of the public, and witnesses to his
popularity remain in the numerous public-houses scattered far and wide over
England which bear his name and arms. Somerset was of a very different
type, being a stupid man whose power was chiefly derived from his
enormous landed possessions. To the Somerset properties he added, by his
marriage with the sole heiress of the earls of Northumberland, the great
estates of the Percies. He held the chancellorship of the University for the
extraordinary term of sixty years. His title of the “proud duke”
commemorates only his arrogance, and was derived from the fact that even
to speak to anyone in a menial position was regarded by him as a
condescension. His servants were trained to understand his wishes by signs,
and numerous footmen surrounded him when in the streets so as to avoid the
risk
114
that any people of the lower classes should approach or address him.
Perhaps the best known of the stories of his pretensions refers to his remark
to his second wife who once called his attention to something by touching
him with her fan (or according to another version kissed him without asking
his leave), “Madam,” said he, drawing himself apart, “my first wife never
dared to take such a liberty, and she was a Percy.” As another illustration of
his character I may add that he deprived one of his daughters of £20,000
because she had sat down in his presence without asking his leave.
In the lodge there are numerous portraits of former masters of the College,
and obviously this is the proper place for such a collection. It is not
complete, twelve past masters being unrepresented, but portraits of two of
these (namely Wilkins and Pearson) hang in the hall. The most notable
picture in this series is that of Nevile, which is properly given the place of
honour over the mantelpiece in the dining room which he built. He holds a
paper in his right hand, and I like to think that this is intended to suggest the
letter which Elizabeth on her death-bed entrusted to him to take to Scotland,
informing James VI of that kingdom that she designated him as her
successor. In this room too are portraits of Porson and Thompson with whose
memories so many excellent academic stories are associated, but I must not

linger
115
over these. In the drawing room the most striking portraits are those of
queen Elizabeth by Mark Gerrard, the duke of Gloucester (1776–1834) in his
undergraduate robes by George Romney, and queen Mary probably by Hans
Eworth. The painted panels in the entrance hall often escape attention, but
are worth looking at, especially in the case of the portraits of Edward III,
Henry VII, Elizabeth of York, Mary of Scotland, Edward VI, and queen
Mary. The collection of portraits, formed by Dr Butler, of Trinity men who
have held judicial appointments is also interesting, but is not generally
accessible to visitors.
The pictures in the lecture-rooms and on the walls of the staircase leading to
them form a sort of overflow collection, and though of unequal merit, a few
are worth attention. There are also some pictures of merit in the library
among which I note in particular portraits of Tennyson and Lightfoot.
The engravings of former members of the College placed in the small
combination room will repay study. There are at present between one
hundred and fifty and two hundred here, but there are many more in
portfolios in the library. Several of these have been acquired in recent years
through the generosity and knowledge of John Charrington.
The painted glass in the hall shows numerous coats of arms, and anyone
acquainted
116
with heraldry will find here a rich field of study. The windows
could have been filled over and over again with the arms of former famous
members of the College, but the matter has been managed in a haphazard
way, and many distinguished sons of the House are unrepresented. In spite of
some bad glass the collection is interesting. Perhaps however any further
account of it here would be more technical than would be justified in a paper
like this. Of other glass in the College, the windows in the chapel are typical
of the art of 1870, and are only moderately satisfactory. The window at the
south end of the library, executed in 1775, was made by Peckitt of York, after
a design by Cipriani: it illustrates some curious points in the history of the art
of stained glass, but the design is impossible, and the scheme of colour
atrocious.
Sculpture, unless it is absolutely first rate, does not represent a man as well
as portraiture. The number of pieces of statuary of the first class in Great
Britain is small, and in the possession of such pieces the College is
extraordinarily fortunate. The statue of Newton, with its proud inscription

“Newton qui genus humanum ingenio superavit,” in the antechapel by
Roubiliac—“the marble index of a mind for ever voyaging through strange
seas of thought alone”—is of the highest merit. It was described by Chantrey
as
117
“the noblest of English statues,” and I have never seen any modern piece
of statuary anywhere which can be ranked superior to it: the man lives and
almost moves. Thorwaldsen’s statue of Byron, rejected by the authorities of
Westminster Abbey on account of his alleged atheistical opinions, which
stands in the library, and that of Bacon in the antechapel may also be
reckoned among examples of first-class statuary. Of these three pieces two
are by foreigners. There are also in the antechapel statues of Barrow,
Macaulay, Whewell, and Tennyson, and in the library a large number of
busts. The statues of Edward III on the clock tower, of Henry VIII, James I,
Anne of Denmark, and Prince Charles on the great gate, and of queen
Elizabeth on the queen’s gate are interesting, though not to be reckoned as
works of art.
Old Silver Plate has a peculiar beauty. We have some fine specimens though
they are fewer and later than from our history we should expect. Most of the
pieces are kept in the butteries, and can be seen by visitors. Twice a year
anyone entering the hall will see the junior bursar there with all the plate
spread before him checking it by his lists, a pretty spectacle which always
suggests to me the picture of the king “in his counting house counting out his
money,” and formerly in “May-week” typical pieces were set out on show in
the hall.
We
118
have a catalogue of the plate—a large and valuable collection—owned
by King’s Hall in the fifteenth century, and we may reasonably suppose that
this, as well as the plate belonging to Michael-House, came in due course to
us; all this has gone with the possible, but doubtful, exception of a censer
boat now in the library. We know also that some plate was given us in Tudor
and early Stuart times: of this, only five pieces remained to us at the
restoration. I take it however that until well into the eighteenth century
people were accustomed to regard plate, other than pieces of historic interest,
as a convenient way of keeping portable wealth in a form which could be
easily turned into coin, and its dispersion in times of emergency when money
was wanted is not surprising.
It was customary for noblemen and fellow-commoners to present plate to the
House when they completed their academic career: their caution-money

being commonly employed for or towards the purpose. After the restoration,
thanks to this graceful practice, our possessions of this kind grew rapidly.
Unfortunately a good many of our pieces were lost through two burglaries,
one in 1795 and the other in 1798; for instance, no less than fifty-five
drinking cups some of great beauty were then taken. During the eighteenth
century,
119
in colleges and throughout the country, large numbers of “standing
pieces” of plate were melted down, and the metal used to make spoons and
forks; this accounts for the disappearance of some of our treasures of an
earlier date. Until 1870 new pieces continued to be added in large numbers:
in that year the College abolished the general admission of noblemen and
fellow-commoners, holding that distinctions of rank were undesirable in
academic life; and since then our collection has increased only by special
gifts or by purchase.
Of our pre-commonwealth plate the oldest pieces are two silver-gilt flagons,
dated 1607–08, given us in 1636 by John and Bernard Stuart, sons of the
duke of Lennox, then about sixteen and fourteen years old. There is in the
small combination room a charming print of Vandyke’s portrait of the
brothers: both boys were killed during the Civil War, John at Edgehill and
Bernard at Rowton Heath. Whistles are placed in the handles of these
flagons, so they must have been originally intended for secular use, but they
have been included, as far back as our records go, among the communion
plate: perhaps the spouts were added when the vessels were placed in the
chapel. Our next earliest piece is the handsome cup, dated 1615–16, given us
by Nevile probably in 1615: it was originally silver-gilt. The fourth of these
pieces is a bursarial rose-water basin and ewer dated 1635–36. We owe it to
Ambrose
120
Aykerod who was bursar in that year: his arms are engraved on the
cup, and the inscriptions on it refer to vows and pledges by him which are
now inexplicable. The only other early piece which survived the Civil War
was a cup given by John Clarkson between 1610 and 1620 and known from
its inscription “Pauper Johannes Dictus Cognomine Clarkson Hunc Cyathum
Dono Gratuito Dedit” as the “Pauper Joan Pot”: this was stolen in 1798.
Clarkson had matriculated as a sizar in 1553, obtained a scholarship in due
course, and graduated B.A. in 1560.
Apart from the four pieces mentioned above, the most striking objects in our
collection are the rose-water basins and ewers, the Duport standing salt, the
standing or loving cups, the tankards, and the punch-bowls.

We have several notable rose-water basins and ewers. The earliest of these is
the set given by the earl of Kent in 1662 to commemorate the passing of the
Act of Uniformity. The date is given by a quaint double chronogram: and the
central inscription Νιψον ανομηματα μη μοναν οψιν reads alike forwards
and backwards. Another beautiful set is that given by the duke of
Buckingham in 1671, the circumference of the basin being over seven feet.
The visitor should also notice a set of 1740 bequeathed by David Humphrey,
and
121
a set of 1748 given by William John Bankes. Another set consists of a
basin of 1716 given by John Bennet, with a graceful ewer probably made
about 1675. This ewer must have been originally a “standing cup” since a
whistle is placed in the handle, but a spout was added between 1789 and
1810 with the intention of turning it into a flagon: on it are engraved the
Trinity and Westminster arms, and in an early catalogue it is called the Busby
cup: its donor is unknown.
There is a curious custom at the high table connected with these dishes. At
the end of dinner on ordinary nights, before grace is said, a rose-water dish
with an empty ewer is placed before the fellow sitting at the head of each
table. I conjecture that this dates from a time when napkins and forks were
unknown, and diners were accustomed to rinse their hands in water before
rising from the table. Now the appearance of the empty ewer is only a sign
that dinner is over. At feasts the ewer contains rose-water which is poured
into the dish and passed round the table.
We have a fine specimen of a standing salt in a piece associated with the
name of James Duport. Its breadth is nearly ten inches, and its height,
without the handles, seven inches. It was these massive salts, and not
“trencher
122
salts,” that were originally used to divide the company into those
that sat above and below the salt; and in the middle ages the standing salt
was generally the most valued single piece in the house and the chief
ornament on the table. The medieval specimens usually have a cover to
protect the salt, and the handles in specimens like ours are said to have been
introduced for a similar reason, as a napkin can be twisted round them so as
to cover the salt, and thus save it from dust. Our specimen bears the
inscription εχετε εν εαυτοις ἁλας και ειρηνευετε εν αλληλοις, together with a
statement that it was given by Duport. Probably his gift was made in 1665,
when he left the College on his appointment as master of Magdalene. The
piece, however, bears the hall-mark 1733–34; here, and in some other cases,

it would seem that the original piece was exchanged for a new one, perhaps
when repairs were required, and it was the custom in such circumstances to
engrave the old inscription on the new piece of plate.
In spite of our losses at the end of the eighteenth century some fine drinking
cups and covers still remain in our possession. Notable among these is one of
1691–92 given by Charles and George Firebrace, one of 1697–98 given by
Henry Boyle, and one of 1711–12 given by John Verney. We have also a cup
and cover of 1726 given by the earl of Sandwich, another of 1729 given by
Samuel
123
Husbands, another of 1763 given by John Damer, another of 1771
given by George Augustus Henry Cavendish, another of 1776 given by
William Greaves, and another of 1780 given by the earl of Mexborough. To
these I may add the Lyndhurst silver-gilt cup and cover of 1876–77 given by
Sir Theodore Martin. All these are fine specimens of silversmith’s work, and
can be used at feasts as loving cups, with the ceremonial customary to such
drinking.
The tankards with lids form another striking group of plate, but the larger
ones which contain three quarts or more must be regarded as being
decorative rather than useful. Conspicuous among these pieces is one,
probably made about 1670, given by Thomas Taylor, one of 1698–99 given
by Peter Pheasaunt, one of 1699–1700 given by Thomas Alston, one of
1700–01 given by Thomas Bellot, one of 1739–40 given by Thomas Foley,
one of 1746–47 given by Francis Vernon, one of 1751–52 given by Charles
Paulet, one of 1757–58 given by Edward Fitzgerald, and one of 1762–63
given by Hans Sloane. There is also a fine collection of ale plate. Of the
smaller tankards, stoups, and drinking cups there are innumerable specimens.
I will not dwell longer over our other pieces. Suffice it is to say that of
punch-bowls there are three or four fine specimens of the eighteenth century,
as
124
also various snuff-boxes, silver trays, etc. Of candlesticks there are
between two and three hundred, many of them beautiful pieces of work. Of
ordinary domestic plate the stock is large.
There is also a good deal of plate which has been given or assigned for use in
the lodge: this includes the Perry silver-gilt dessert service. In the chapel
plate besides the flagons already mentioned there are two silver-gilt patens of
1661–62, associated in the early catalogues with the names of John and
Bernard Stuart; also an alms-dish of 1673, and an altar cross given in 1894
and said to be of Spanish renaissance work.

I add some particulars of thirteen challenge pieces of plate owned by the
Boat and Athletic Clubs: of these, five belong to the First Trinity Boat Club,
and eight to the Athletic Club. These pieces are of recent make and their
chief interest comes from the inscribed names of the successive holders.
Trinity men will recollect that there are various races arranged each year by
the First Trinity Boat Club, the winners of which receive pots or other prizes,
and that in five of these events, the winners, in addition to receiving the
special prizes, hold challenge pieces on which are engraved the names of
past winners. These challenge pieces are: A two-handled silver chased cup
and
125
stand (hall-mark 1836), held by the winner of a sculling race (the
Macnaughten Sculls) rowed in the Michaelmas Term, open to all members of
the Club who have not previously won it or the University Colquhoun Sculls.
A two-handled silver cup and stand (hall-mark probably 1857 or 1858),
which came to the club from the now defunct Second Trinity Boat Club, held
by the winner of a sculling race (the Baines Sculls) rowed in the Lent Term,
open to all members who have not previously won it or the Macnaughten
Sculls or the University Colquhoun Sculls. Silver oars (hall-mark 1860) held
by the winners of a pair-oared race (the Wyatt Pairs) rowed in the
Michaelmas Term, open to all members who have not previously won it or
the University Magdalene Pairs. Silver oars (hall-mark 1861) which came to
the Club from Second Trinity, held by the winners of a pair-oared race (the
Dodington Pairs) rowed in the Lent Term, open to all members who have not
previously won it or the Wyatt Pairs or the University Magdalene Pairs.
Silver Sculls (hall-mark 1897) held by the winners of a double sculling race
(the Taxis Sculls) rowed in the Easter Term, open to all members who have
not previously won it or the University Magdalene pairs.
Similarly among the sports arranged each year by the Trinity Athletic Club
are seven events, the winners of which in addition to receiving special prizes,
hold
126
challenge pieces of plate on which are engraved the names of past
winners. These challenge pieces are: A half-fluted silver bowl and plinth
(hall-mark 1887) held by the winner of the mile race. A half-fluted silver
bowl and plinth (hall-mark 1899) held by the winner of the half-mile race. A
silver chased claret jug with handle (hall-mark 1886) held by the winner of
the quarter-mile race. Four silver candlesticks (hall-mark 1899) held by the
winner of the hundred yards race. A two-handled half-fluted silver cup (hall-
mark 1888) held by the winner of the hurdles race. A two-handled silver

bowl (hall-mark 1896) held by the winner of the long jump. A silver salver
(hall-mark 1896) held by the winner of the high jump. Finally there is a two-
handled silver chased cup and plinth (hall-mark 1892) held by the man who
scores most marks in the various events.
It may be thought that I have occupied too much space in giving bare lists of
pieces of plate, but the shapes of some of the pieces are so good and the
surface of old silver, when carefully tended, has such a beautiful texture that
I believe it may be worth calling the attention of any interested in such things
to some of our possessions of this kind. Only societies and families with
continuous records dating from a distant past can show such collections.

127
CHAPTER VII.
THE COLLEGE AUDITORS.

here is no reference in our earliest college statutes—those of 1552—to an

t Auditor, but the extant accounts show that the office existed from the
foundation of the College in 1546. Definite regulations for the
appointment were proposed in the draft statutes of 1554, and were embodied
in the statutes of 1560. By these the auditor was made one of the statutable
officers of the Society: the post was held for long periods, and it was not
permissible to perform the duties by proxy. The statute in question was re-
enacted in 1844. By the statutes of 1861 the office was made annual, and
tenable only during pleasure. It remains annual under the present statutes, but
a definite proviso was inserted in 1882 that it is not tenable by a fellow or
officer of the House, and a clause was introduced providing for the
appointment from among the fellows of an Assessor or Assessors who should
be present during the audit.
From the foundation of the College, its financial year ran from Michaelmas
to Michaelmas, and the audit of each year was concluded in the following
December.
128
At first the annual honorarium of the auditor seems to have been
£10 with an allowance of £2 for travelling expenses, stationery, etc., but
before the end of the sixteenth century it had been reduced to £5, with an
augmentation of £3. 6s. 8d. and some allowances.
The form of the declaratio computi was much as at present, and generally,
with but small variations, it takes the form now stereotyped “and so the said
A. B. Senior (or Junior) Bursar upon the foot of this his account for one
whole year ending Michaelmas ... oweth unto the College the sum of....” In
some cases, and notably in the seventeenth century, the sums include
fractions of a penny, even as small as one thirty-second part thereof.

Presumably the audit was always followed by a “feast,” as still remains the
custom.
Of the occupants of the office from 1546 to 1618 the information in the
college books is incomplete. The only auditors previous to 1618 whose
names I have noticed, with the years in which they held office, are Edward
Burnell, 1553, 1561, 1563 and 1564; Adam Winthrop, 1606; and Richard
Brooke, 1614. I have not, however, read the account-books through from
cover to cover, and it may be that there are references which have escaped
me. Luckily Winthrop’s diary and some memoranda from 1595 to 1621 are
extant, and contain references to a few earlier dates. From these we can take
our
129
continuous record back to the year ending Michaelmas 1593, when he
was auditor. He resigned in 1610, and was succeeded by Brooke. Brooke was
acting in 1615, and had commons in 1616, and I have no doubt acted in
1617. From 1618 onwards we can, from one source or another, make out the
names of those who held the office. The handwritings of the earlier auditors
have marked characteristics. They suggest that there was one auditor from
1547 to 1552, another from 1553 to 1578, who must have been Edward
Burnell, another from 1579 to 1591, and another from 1592 to 1609, who
must have been Adam Winthrop. But I present these as mere surmises, and I
do not attempt to go back beyond 1593.
Our roll then is as follows. From 1547 to 1592 we cannot definitely say more
than that Edward Burnell was auditor for a period which included the years
1553 to 1564, for no doubt his tenure was unbroken. From 1593 the
sequence runs thus:
Adam Winthrop, 1593 (or earlier) to 1609; Richard Brooke, 1610 to 1617;
Robert Spicer, 1618 to 1628; Francis Hughes, 1629 to 1668; Samuel
Newton, 1669 to 1717, Newton resigned in 1674, and thereon he and
William Ellis were appointed to the office, with remainder to the survivor of
them, but apparently William Ellis never acted; Denys L’Isle, 1718 to 1726;
William
130
Greaves, 1727 to 1778; Robert Graham, 1779 to 1791; Samuel
Knight, 1792 to 1811; Nicholas Conyngham Tindal, 1812 to 1825; James
Parke, 1826 to 1828; Andrew Amos, 1829 to 1836; John George Shaw-
Lefevre, 1837 to 1851; George Denman, 1852 to 1862; George Valentine
Yool, 1863 to 1869; Augustus Arthur VanSittart, 1870 to 1881; John Willis
Clark, 1882 to 1908. Since 1908 the office has been held by a professional
accountant. The dates given indicate the ends of the audit year: thus the audit

of 1669 was for the year 1668–69. It will be noticed that during the three
hundred and sixteen years from 1593 to 1908, there were, if we omit William
Ellis, only seventeen auditors, giving an average tenure of more than
eighteen years. Of these seventeen auditors at least eleven have been lawyers
and four ultimately rose to the Bench. I add a few biographical notes on
these auditors.
Of Edward Burnell, the earliest holder of the office whose name I have
given, I know nothing. His successor Adam Winthrop, 1548–1623, the son of
a prominent London merchant and reformer, had been admitted as a fellow-
commoner at Magdalene in 1567, and had left the University without a
degree. He had been called to the bar, but did not practise, and was content to
fill the rôle of a well-to-do country squire. He was an intimate friend of Still,
master of Trinity from 1577 to 1593, whose sister he married in 1574, and
whose
131
wife was his connection by marriage. I conjecture that he owed the
office to Still’s influence. Winthrop was a fair scholar, an indifferent poet,
and somewhat of a pedant. His tomb is at Groton, Suffolk. More than one of
his descendants were distinguished. In particular his son, John, 1588–1649,
who was admitted to Trinity College in 1602, was the founder of the well-
known American family of this name; and his great-great-grandson, Sir
George Downing was the founder of Downing College.
Winthrop seems to have done the whole of the audit work at the end of the
Michaelmas term of each year. Thus in 1601 he wrote:
The ivth of Decemb. I ridde to Cambride & beganne the Auditt the 7th beinge Monday. The
xiiijth of Decembre I returned from the Auditt & did see the Sonne in the Eclips about 12 of the
Clock at noone.

Perhaps his resignation was made at the suggestion of the College, for early
in 1610 he wrote:
Dr Meriton came to speake with me about the resignation of my office in Trinity College to Mr
Brookes.... I surrendered my Auditorship in Trinitye College to the Mr fellows & schollers before
a pub. notary.... I dyned at Dr Meriton’s in Hadley & received of him xxlb for my
Auditorshippe.... Mr Rich. Brooke the nue Auditor of Trinity College was at my house in Groton
to whom I dd. divers paper books & Roles touchinge his Office.

Of the next three auditors I can discover very little. Richard Brooke was
appointed
132
in 1610. The following conclusion of 8 June 1615, seems to refer
to him, “concluded that Mr Brookes in regard of his paines taken divers
times for the Colledge that he shoulde ... have given him Twentye pounds,”

and during his visits in the following year be allowed commons. We may
assume that he held office till the end of 1617. A Richard Brookes had
entered at Queens’ as a fellow-commoner in 1587, but whether he was the
subsequent auditor there is nothing to show. In 1618 we have the copy of the
appointment of Robert Spicer. He held office till the end of 1628, since a
conclusion of 3 June 1629, appointed in his place Francis Hughes. Hughes,
who held the office till his death in October 1669, was admitted a scholar in
1616, graduated M.A. in 1623, was one of the esquire-bedells, and occupied
rooms in College at the time of his death.
The next occupant of the office was Samuel Newton, 1629–1718, a
prominent attorney in the town and mayor in 1671. He was not a member of
the University. His diary from 1662 to 1717 preserved in the library of
Downing College, contains an account of his election to the post in the
chapel by the master and seniors, he being present in the antechapel. He
attended next day in his gown, was sworn to the faithful discharge of his
duties,
133
and signed the roll of college officers. He proved thoroughly efficient.
For his services at the audit in 1669 he received the fee of £5 with the
customary augmentation of £3. 6s. 8d., a sum of £6. 13s. 4d. for engrossing
the audit rolls, which henceforth were kept excellently, a sum of £1 for
preparing a book of arrears, and a sum of £1. 2s. 8d. for stationery. He also
received from the junior bursar, billets of wood of the value of 6s. 8d.; from
the steward, a “warp of lyng” of the value of 6s. 8d.; from the manciple, a
“coller of brawne, also a dish of wild fowle or 6s. 8d.”; and from the
brewhouse, “2 barrels of strong beere.”
In 1674 Newton surrendered his patent of appointment as auditor, but he was
immediately reappointed jointly with his cousin, William Ellis, with
remainder to the survivor of them. They were at the same time appointed on
the same conditions to the office of college registrar, then vacant by the
death of a Mr T. Griffith. According to Newton’s diary, William Ellis
proceeded M.A. in 1670, but his name does not appear in the list of graduati,
unless indeed he is the Wm Ellis who received the degree per lit. reg. in
1671. The college account-books continued to be signed by Newton, and I
have not noticed in them evidence that Ellis ever took any part in the audit.
The Society’s solicitors and attorneys have frequently acted as registrars, and
it134may be that Ellis was in partnership with Newton, and was for that reason
made with him joint auditor and registrar.

Samuel Newton died in 1718 in his ninetieth year. For the three years, 1715,
1716, and 1717, the books were audited by John Newton, presumably his son
or grandson, as his deputy. No doubt the arrangement was made in
consequence of the failing health of the old gentleman whose signature in
1714 was very shaky. The appointment of a deputy was invalid under the
statute, but it must have been made with the approval of Bentley, and
perhaps of the seniority. At any rate John Newton conducted the audit, and
signed the books as deputy auditor.
Newton was succeeded in 1718 as auditor and registrar by Denys L’Isle.
L’Isle had been a fellow-commoner of Trinity Hall, admitted in 1712,
graduated LL.B. in 1715, who had gone down and in 1716 taken his name
off the books. He was a vigorous and not too scrupulous barrister. He owed
his appointment to Bentley, and he showed “extraordinary activity and zeal
in promoting all” his benefactor’s “wishes and interests” and represented him
in some of his disputes. Whatever view may be taken of Bentley’s character,
no one can justify his conduct in regard to the college finances. A notable
scandal occurred in the audit of 1722. In the accounts of that year large sums
were
135
charged to the College for works at the lodge and other sums spent by
the master which had not been sanctioned by the Society. Undoubtedly the
charges were illegal, but Bentley and L’Isle refused to allow the accounts to
be examined by the seniority. In fact in this, as in other matters, L’Isle had no
scruple in screening Bentley from the consequences of acts which were
neither legal nor honourable.
L’Isle died in 1727, and was succeeded as auditor, steward of the courts, and
registrar by William Greaves. Greaves had in 1719 migrated to Clare,
Cambridge, from Brasenose, Oxford; he graduated B.A. in 1720, and in 1722
was elected at Clare to a fellowship which he held till 1742. He was a
barrister and an able man: he too owed his office to Bentley, and acted as his
counsel in many of his tortuous proceedings. Through Bentley’s influence
Greaves had in 1726 been made commissary of the University, an office
which he held till 1778. The letters patent to the office of college auditor
were made out for the term of his life, but a question having been raised as to
whether this was statutable, he surrendered them, and the College granted
new patents for the term of fifty years if he should live so long. I suppose he
was duly admitted to the office, for probably an acute lawyer would have
seen to this, but there is no record of the fact in our books.

Greaves
136
seems to have performed his duties as auditor in an honourable
manner. After the audit of 1778, he surrendered his office at the close of fifty
years’ tenure of it: he then received a present of plate from the College, with
their thanks for his long and faithful services. Six years later he made a
donation to the Society of £100 to found an annual prize for an essay on the
character of King William the Third. After nearly a century it was said that
the essayists had exhausted the subject, and in 1882 the College got leave to
substitute for it one connected with the history of the British Empire.
Robert Graham, 1744–1836, a lawyer of note, succeeded Greaves. Graham
had graduated as third wrangler in 1766, and in the following year had been
elected to a fellowship. He held the office till after the audit of 1791. He was
made a baron of the exchequer in 1799, and proved a singularly inefficient
judge. He retired from the bench in 1827.
Graham’s chief distinction is said to have been his urbanity, and at the Bar it
was currently believed that no one but his sempstress had power to ruffle his
equanimity. He was somewhat pompous, and an adventure of his at the
assizes at Newcastle afforded much amusement to his contemporaries. There,
on one occasion just before charging the grand jury, he tumbled, unnoticed,
into
137
the river from the garden of the house where he lodged, but luckily was
hauled out by some passing watermen. The rough remedies of the quay-side
failed to restore consciousness, and the bystanders, supposing he was
drowned, carted him to a dead-house, where he was stripped and laid out.
The coroner’s jury, summoned with unusual celerity, had viewed the body,
and were considering their verdict when, to their surprise he showed signs of
life and came to himself. His position was not altogether dignified, but
realizing at once that it is always incumbent on a judge to move in state, he
was by his directions fetched from the mortuary in the sheriff’s carriage,
with the trumpeters, and usual ceremonial.
Of Graham’s successor, Samuel Knight, 1755–1829, I know little. He had
been admitted as a pensioner in 1772, became a fellow-commoner in 1774,
and graduated in the poll in 1776. Apparently he had no special
qualifications for the post beyond being a pleasant member of society. He
resigned in 1812, and died in 1829.
After Knight’s resignation, the post was offered to Nicholas Conyngham
Tindal, 1776–1846, a lawyer of distinction. He had graduated in 1799 as

eighth wrangler, was a Chancellor’s medalist, and had been elected to a
fellowship in 1801, which, as he did not take orders, he had vacated in due
course in accordance with the provisions of the Elizabethan statutes. The
plan
138
of offering the post to a distinguished past fellow now became the
custom, and all the auditors hereafter mentioned were past fellows of the
college.
Tindal was one of the counsel for queen Caroline; he is celebrated in the
history of the courts for having secured to a criminal client the right of wager
of battle, which had long fallen into disuse but had not been abolished by
statute. He was member for the University from 1827 to 1829 in which year
he was made chief justice of the Common Pleas; he held that office till his
death in 1846. Though not specially successful as an advocate, he had a
profound knowledge of law and was an excellent judge. His enormous
dimensions are commemorated in a print in my possession with the
inscription “Judges of A Size,” representing him standing by Joshua
Williams one of his colleagues on assize, who was very diminutive; probably
this is an ancient joke.
The next auditor was James Parke, 1782–1868, a lawyer of even greater
distinction. He had graduated in 1803 as fifth wrangler, and had been Craven
scholar, Browne’s medalist and Chancellor’s medalist. In 1804 he had been
elected to a fellowship. He was one of the counsel briefed against queen
Caroline. He was made a judge in 1828, and of course then resigned the
office of auditor, which he thus held for only three years.
Parke
139
had a profound knowledge of the common law, and admired, and was
a rigid adherent of, ancient forms and customs. The fact was well known,
and led to a curious scene, when on one occasion, while giving a judgment,
he fainted. Cold water and smelling salts were applied without success,
whereon a somewhat malicious colleague brought from an adjacent room an
ancient volume of reports, black with the dust of ages, and banged it under
the nostrils of the judge. It may have been a coincidence, but Parke at once
revived, and in a few minutes was able to proceed with the business in hand.
At one time when Parke was trying a criminal case the prisoner confessed his
crime to his advocate, who thereupon (most improperly) acquainted the
judge with the fact and asked his advice. Parke rebuked the barrister for
informing him of the prisoner’s guilt, but added that counsel was not the less

bound to defend his client to the best of his ability. The case has been often
cited, and states the practice of the bar; it being of course assumed that
nothing is said or done for the defence which an honourable man might not
say or do.
Parke’s subsequent career served to settle a constitutional question of great
importance. In 1856 he was created Baron Wensleydale with a life peerage.
It140was decided that the power of the crown to create life peerages had been
lost by disuse. He was then made a baron with the usual remainder in tail
male.
Parke was followed as auditor by Andrew Amos, 1791–1860, also a lawyer
of distinction. He had graduated as fifth wrangler in 1813, and in 1815 had
been elected to a fellowship. He was appointed auditor in 1829. He had a
large arbitration practice, acted on the Criminal Law Commission, and was
professor of English Law in London. In 1837 he was appointed legal
member of the Indian Council, and on his departure for the East had to resign
his office in the college. On the first vacancy after his return to England, he
was, in 1848, elected Downing Professor of Laws in Cambridge, and
occupied the chair until his death.
Amos was succeeded by John George Shaw-Lefevre, 1797–1879. Shaw-
Lefevre had been senior wrangler and first Smith’s prize man in 1818, and
had been elected to a fellowship in the following year. Like his predecessors
he was a barrister, but most of his time was taken up with duties connected
with public departments. He settled the county divisions under the Reform
Act of 1832, and was a member of numerous Commissions, notably those
connected with compensation for the abolition of slavery, with the Poor Law
Act, with the creation of South Australia, with ecclesiastical affairs, and with
the
141
Indian Civil Service: till 1875 he was busily engaged in public affairs. He
stood unsuccessfully for parliament in the university contest of 1847. He
resigned the auditorship after the audit of 1851. His tenure of the post is
commemorated by his gift of the chandelier which hangs in the large
combination room.
The next auditor was the Hon. George Denman, 1819–1896, also a lawyer.
Denman had been senior classic in 1842, and had been elected to a
fellowship in the following year. He had always kept up his connection with
the College, where he had numerous friends. He became auditor in 1852.

Like his predecessor he stood unsuccessfully for parliament as a
representative of the University: this was in 1856. Subsequently he was
appointed counsel to the University. He entered parliament in 1859, and
owing to press of work gave up his college office at the close of the audit of
1862. After a distinguished legal career he was raised in 1872 to the bench.
He was a good scholar, had a fine presence, and to the end of his life was
popular with all classes of Cambridge society.
If I may trust my memory Denman told me that among his annual perquisites
as auditor was a case of audit ale, and that on one occasion he gave it to
Livingstone who he knew would appreciate it. The case travelled with the
explorer
142
through Africa, and as long as the ale lasted glasses of it were
circulated, to the great satisfaction of the natives, whenever solemn treaties
were ratified.
The next holder of the office was George Valentine Yool, 1829–1897, a
chancery barrister, who had been third wrangler and second Smith’s
prizeman in 1851, and had been elected to a fellowship in 1853. Yool took
but little part in public affairs. He was appointed auditor in 1863, and gave
up the office at the end of 1869.
After Yool’s resignation the College reverted to its former practice, and
appointed as auditor a resident, Augustus Arthur VanSittart. VanSittart had
been bracketed senior classic in 1847, and had been elected to a fellowship
in the following year. After once standing unsuccessfully for parliament, he
devoted himself to literary work, and among other things collected and
collated the various readings of the New Testament. His annual speech at the
audit feast, wherein he gave a witty sketch of the more interesting
developments of academic life during the preceding year, was one of the
features of the time, and served somewhat the same purpose as the Tripos
verses of earlier ages. He held the office till his death in the spring of 1882.
He was wealthy, and a most generous benefactor of the Fitzwilliam Museum
and other Cambridge institutions.
On
143
VanSittart’s death the post was given to John Willis Clark, 1833–1910.
Clark had come up to Trinity in 1852, obtained a first class in the classical
tripos, 1856, and was elected to a fellowship in 1858. He made his home in
Cambridge, and his unceasing activities in zoological, library, and theatrical
matters are chronicled in the local records. He completed the Architectural

History of the University—a permanent and invaluable record of Cambridge
history—which had been commenced by his uncle, and wrote on various
library and antiquarian subjects. He held the registraryship of the University
from 1891 to his death in 1910.
Clark vacated the office of auditor in 1908, and since then the College has
appointed to the post a professional accountant.

144
CHAPTER VIII.
WREN’S DESIGNS FOR THE COLLEGE LIBRARY.

n 1914 the College obtained an interesting series of photographs of Wren’s

i original drawings and plans for our library in Nevile’s Court. They will
well repay inspection by those who are interested in our history or in
architecture.
The present library is the third building assigned by Trinity for the purpose.
During the first half-century of its existence the Society used the library26 of
King’s Hall, a good first-floor room, some twenty feet long by ten feet broad,
which had been built in 1416–21 near the north-west corner of the cloister
court of that House. This room was connected with the old oratory of King’s
Hall by a gallery over the west cloister.
Soon after the foundation of Trinity the provision of a larger library was
contemplated, and in the order (about providing building materials for the
chapel) of queen Elizabeth of 1560, it is said that its erection had been
already begun. In fact however it was then only under discussion.

145

Wren’s Second Design for the College Library. Exterior.

146

Wren’s First Design for the College Library. Exterior.

147

Wren’s First Design for the College Library. Interior.

148

Wren’s Design for a Senate House.

Our predecessors, in their arrangements for the “reconcination” or rebuilding
of
149
the Great Court, naturally attached great importance to not interfering
with King Edward’s Tower which had long been the chief entrance to King’s
Hall and then stood near the present sundial. A suggested way of working
this Tower into the scheme of the court is shown on the plan which hangs on
the staircase leading to the library annexe; in this, a block one hundred feet
long and thirty-four feet broad, was to be built over an open colonnade
running eastwards from the Tower and ending in front of and a few yards
from the Great Gate. The first floor of this block might have been used for
the new library; or alternatively it might have been used for chambers, and
the new library built elsewhere, for instance, as was suggested, on the site of
the range of chambers which now stretches from the chapel to the turret
staircase adjoining the lodge.
Neither of these proposals was then adopted, and our second library was not
erected till Nevile, between 1594 and 1600, took the matter in hand. He
provided for it a room seventy-five feet long and thirty feet broad on the
second floor of the range connecting the Clock Tower and the lodge; it has
since been converted into chambers.
Less than a century after Nevile’s library was finished, the Society again
found it necessary to provide more book accommodation, and the result is
the
150
impressive and excellently designed building which stands on the west
side of Nevile’s Court. According to tradition, its erection, commenced in
February 1676, was due to Barrow, then master of the College, who in the
previous year had pressed the other heads of Houses to provide a room
worthy of the University for its meetings, and urged that it should be of the
best. Such schemes are expensive and cannot be effected without public
spirit. Caution, it is said, carried the day, whereon Barrow, piqued at this
faint-heartedness, declared that he would go to Trinity, “lay out the
foundations of a building to enlarge his back court, and close it with a stately
library, which should be more magnificent and costly than what he had
proposed.... And he was as good as his word, for that very afternoon he ...
staked out the very foundation upon which the building now stands.”

The story may be substantially true, for the long-cherished idea of building a
university theatre and library was then in the hands of a syndicate: on the
other hand the extant speech of Barrow in which he put forward his policy
was not delivered till the Easter term 1676, and Wren’s designs for such a
building are referred to the year 1678 and indicate that the scheme had not
been then abandoned. But whether the anecdote be true or not, we may take
it that the erection of our library was due to Barrow’s initiative, and that he
personally raised a considerable sum towards its cost.
Sir
151
Christopher Wren, a warm personal friend of Barrow, was selected as the
architect, and placed his services at the disposal of the College without
remuneration. His original drawings are included in a collection of his
designs preserved at All Souls’ College, Oxford, and by the kindness of that
Society we have been allowed to take photographs of the plans which
concern us. These relate to two plans for our library and one for a university
commencement-house. The two plans for Trinity were made not later than
1675; they may have been submitted as alternatives, but there is a tradition
that the second design was prepared only after the first had been rejected.
Nevile’s Court, as now arranged, contains three staircases on each of its
sides, is closed on the east by the hall and small combination room block,
and on the west by the library. In 1675 only two of the staircases on each
side had been built, and the western ends of these were connected by a blank
wall pierced in the middle by a gate, which is believed to have been later
removed, stone by stone, and finally placed as the entrance to the College at
the bottom of Trinity lane, where it now stands. Beyond this wall and
between it and the river was the college tennis court. The land between
Nevile’s Court and the river was selected as the site of the library.
Wren’s first design shows a double cylindrical shell about sixty-five feet
across
152
inside and ninety feet high, surmounted by a dome and entered
through a six-columned Ionic portico facing Nevile’s Court. On the ground
floor was a lobby round which were stone seats. Above this the inside of the
inner cylindrical shell was lined with bookshelves, and for convenience of
approach there were three galleries. The room was lighted by windows in the
dome and a superimposed lantern. The east side of the portico was half-way
between the western ends of the court, and these ends were connected with
the body of the library by low curved walls surmounted by iron rails. This
building is described as “a very beautiful and most commodious model,” but

it strikes the ordinary layman as poor in design, and I do not think that all
Wren’s genius could have made it other than unsatisfactory. Why it was
rejected we do not know, but few will doubt that the decision was wise.
Wren’s second or alternative design, which was adopted, shows a lofty
oblong room about one hundred and fifty feet long by thirty-eight feet broad
supported on a colonnade. Several of his drawings for this were engraved for
the Architectural History of Cambridge by Willis and Clark, but the
photographic reproductions of the originals—some with Wren’s notes
attached—which are now available have an interest of their own. A careful
study will show details which were subsequently modified. The present
library
153
was placed to the west of the court as then built, and the rows of
chambers on each side were extended to meet it. It is well-known that the
shelves, cases, benches, tables, and book-rests now used were designed by
Wren, and his drawings for them are reproduced in this series of
photographs. The removal of all the bookcases except those fixed against the
walls would enable us to judge the appearance intended by Wren. How fine
the effect must have been, may be gathered from the plate in Le Keux’s
Memorials or the engraving in the University Almanack of 1852.
Among Wren’s plans is also one for “a Theatre or Commencement-House
with a Library annexed, according to an Intention for the University of
Cambridge, about the year 1678, but not executed.” Whether this represents
a sketch of the general plan which it is said that Barrow had suggested to the
heads of Houses in 1675 it is impossible to say. The erection of a building on
these lines might have been costly, but the result would have been a valuable
addition to the architecture of Cambridge.
I published in the Trinity Magazine in 1914 the elevations of our library
according to Wren’s two plans and of his suggested Commencement or
Senate House. I reprint these here (see above, pp. 145–148), but add nothing
more as it is intended shortly to reproduce in book-form various drawings on
the subject made by Wren.

26 There was an earlier library in King’s Hall but we do not know where it was situated.

154
CHAPTER IX.
A CHRISTMAS JOURNEY IN 1319.

nthe Record Office in London are preserved some money accounts27
i concerned with a visit of the scholars of King’s Hall to York at Christmas
in the year 13 Edward II, that is, in 1319. The following analysis gives the
route followed by one section of the party and the expenses of the journey: it
is a valuable record of the method and cost of travelling in medieval times.
By way of preamble, I may say that the origin of King’s Hall is to be found
in the establishment at Cambridge, in 1317, by Edward II, of a body of
Scholars or King’s Children; that they were regarded as part of the royal
household; and that the nominations to the office of warden and to
scholarships were reserved to the king. King’s Hall was dissolved in 1546,
and its buildings and property assigned by Henry VIII to Trinity College.
Early in December 1319, the warden and scholars were ordered to spend the
coming Christmas with the court, then at York, and the sheriff of
Cambridgeshire was directed to provide for their journey. During the
preceding
155
Michaelmas term thirty-three members of the House had been in
residence, and all of them went to York.
The names of the members of the House in 1319 are immaterial to our story,
but I venture to give them, for these students lived here nearly six centuries
ago, and doubtless had hopes, plans, and ambitions at bottom much the same
as we have. They were, in order of seniority, John de Bagshot the warden,
Nicholas de Durnford, Nicholas de Rome, David de Winchester, William
Pour, Richard Pour, Nicholas Pour, John de Aston, John de Torterold, James
de Torterold, Robert de Immeworth, Thomas de Windsor, Walter
de Nottingham, Roger Parker, John de Kelsey, John de Hull, Edward

de Kingston, Hugh de Sutton, Philip de London, John de Salisbury, Richard
de Salisbury, Robert de Beverley, John Fort, Ralph de Gretford, Henry
de Gretford, Nicholas Parker, Nicholas Pull, Richard de Berwick, Andrew
Rosekin, Thomas Griffon, John Griffon, William Draghswerd, and John
de Woodstock. It will be noticed that some of the students are designated by
surnames which were already coming into use and some by place names: the
latter show from what a wide area the scholars were drawn.
For the purpose of travelling the Society was divided into two sections, both
156
of which started from Cambridge on Thursday28, 20 December. One party,
comprising the warden, John de Bagshot, and six of the scholars, went on
horseback, and arrived at York on Christmas eve. Their journey thus
occupied five days and they covered about thirty-five miles a day; of it we
have no particulars, save that the warden paid £1. 3s. 4d. for the hire in
Cambridge of seven hackneys, and was allowed £1. 9s. 2d. for the other
expenses, namely 10d. a day for each member of the party. The remaining
twenty-six scholars travelled under the care of one of their number, John
de Aston, and arrived at York on 28 December. They took with them seven
and a half lengths of cloth with the furs thereto belonging, and four grooms,
but whether the grooms went the whole way is not clear. It is with this nine
days’ journey that I here deal.
The cloth and furs which had been purchased on behalf of the crown from
merchants at Bury were valuable. The former was red in colour (de blodes
mixto) and had cost £21. 2s. 6d.: the latter comprised twenty-one lamb skins,
bought for £2. 19s. 6d. and six budge skins, bought for £1. The carriage of
these goods must have been a serious hindrance to rapid travelling.
The first two days, Thursday and Friday, 20 and 21 December, were
occupied in the journey from Cambridge to Spalding. This was made in two
hired
157
boats (with the services of six men), for which the charge was 5s. On
20 December, the travellers paid 2d. for porterage of their goods to the boats
at Cambridge, 1s. 7d. for bread, 2s. for beer, 1s. for herrings, 1s. 4d. for hard
fish and codlings, and 4d. for fuel. On 21 December they paid 1s. 5d. for
bread, 2s. 2d. for beer, 1s. 7d. for herrings and other fish, 3d. for cheese, 2d.
for porterage from the boats at Spalding, 5½d. for fuel and candles, and 8d.
for beds at Spalding.

On Saturday, 22 December, they travelled to Boston. On this day, they paid
2s. for hiring two carts for carrying the cloth and fourteen of the scholars,
and 3s. for twelve hackneys for the rest of the party. They also spent 1s. 4d.
for bread, 1s. 11d. for beer, 2s. 3d. for herrings and other fish, 5d. for fuel
and candles, and 8d. for beds at Boston.
The next two days, Sunday and Monday, 23 and 24 December, were
occupied in the journey to Lincoln which was performed in a single large
boat. On 23 December, they paid 5s. for the hire of this boat, 4d. for straw to
spread on it, 2d. for porterage to the boat, 1s. 6d. for bread, 2s. 7d. for beer,
2s. 4d. for meat, 1s. 6¾d. for eight hens, and 6d. for fuel. On 24 December,
they paid 1s. 2d. for bread, 2s. for beer, 2s. 1d. for herrings and other fish,
9d. for eels, 3d. for porterage from the boat at Lincoln, 6½d. for fuel and
candles, and 8d. for beds at Lincoln.
Tuesday,
158
being Christmas Day, was spent quietly at Lincoln. Their expenses
for the day were 1s. 4d. for bread, 2s. 1d. for beer, 2s. 3d. for meat, 1s. 1¼d.
for five hens, 7½d. for candles and fuel, and 8d. for beds.
On Wednesday, 26 December, the party travelled to Torksey, making the
journey in two boats hired at Lincoln. On this day, they paid 2s. 8d. for the
hire of the boats, 3d. for porterage to the boats, 1s. 8d. for bread, 2s. 3d. for
beer, 2s. 1d. for meat, 7d. for eggs, 4d. for fuel and candles, and 8d. for beds
at Torksey.
The next two days, Thursday and Friday, 27 and 28 December, were
occupied in the journey from Torksey to York, which was made in a large
boat hired at Torksey. On 27 December, they paid 6s. for the hire of this boat,
2d. for porterage to the boat at Torksey, 1s. 7d. for bread, 2s. 6d. for beer, 1s.
10d. for meat. On 28 December, they paid 1s. for bread, 1s. 5d. for beer, 1s.
4d. for herrings and other fish, and 2d. for porterage of their goods at York.
The total cost of the journey came to £4. 5s. 8½d., and this was repaid to the
warden from the royal exchequer on 31 December. On the opposite page is a
summary of the daily expenditure described above.

159 Dec. 20. Dec. 21. Dec. 22. Dec. 23. Dec. 24. Dec. 25. Dec. 26. Dec. 27. Dec. 28.
s. d. s. d. s. d. s. d. s. d. s. d. s. d. s. d. s. d.
Hire of Boats 5 0 ... ... 5 0 ... ... 2 8 6 0 ...
Straw ... ... ... 4 ... ... ... ... ...
Porterage 2 2 ... 2 3 ... 3 2 2
Hire of Carts ... ... 2 0 ... ... ... ... ... ...
Hire of Hackneys ... ... 3 0 ... ... ... ... ... ...
Bread 1 7 1 5 1 4 1 6 1 2 1 4 1 8 1 7 1 0
Beer 2 0 2 2 1 11 2 7 2 0 2 1 2 3 2 6 1 5
Hard Fish, etc. 1 4 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Herrings, etc. 1 0 1 7 2 3 ... 2 1 ... ... ... 1 4
Eels ... ... ... ... 9 ... ... ... ...
Meat ... ... ... 2 4 ... 2 3 2 1 1 10 ...
Hens ... ... ... 1 6¾ ... 1 1¼ ... ... ...
Eggs ... ... ... ... ... ... 7 ... ...
Cheese ... 3 ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Fuel and Candles 4 5½ 5 6 6½ 7½ 4 ... ...
Beds ... 8 8 ... 8 8 8 ... ...
11 5 6 8½ 11 7 13 11¾ 7 5½ 8 0¾ 10 6 12 1 3 11

There are no records of the expenses of the Society during the time the
members
160
were at York; but presumably while there, they were treated as
members of the royal household. Their visit, however, was not devoid of
incident since a warrant was issued against one of them, Robert de Beverley,
for having joined with the prior of the preaching friars of Pontefract in an
assault on a certain William Hardy: the student was left behind at York, and
there disappears from our history. Two other members of the House, Edward
de Kingston and David de Winchester, were also left in the city, of whom
probably at least one was concerned in this disturbance. One new member,
Warin Trot, was admitted at York. These changes reduced the numbers to
thirty-one. Of these thirty-one members, twenty-one, under the guidance of
John de Aston, came back to Cambridge on the festival of St Fabian and
St Sebastian (i.e. 20 January), while the warden and the remaining nine
scholars, among whom Trot was included, arrived on 9 February, and from
these dates their stipends in Cambridge during the Lent Term, 1320, were
reckoned.
Why the king summoned the members of the House to York at so
considerable cost I cannot say, but I think the detailed statement of how most
of them travelled and their expenses on the journey are interesting.

27 Exchequer Accounts, 552/10.
28 In my original paper the days of the week were given incorrectly.

161
CHAPTER X.
AN OUTLINE OF THE COLLEGE STORY29.

have been asked to take you round Trinity College to-morrow, and by way

i oftasks,
preface to say to-night something about its history. The first of these
to anyone who lives here, is not difficult, but it is far from easy to
give, in forty minutes, a sketch of a history covering centuries of academic
life and involving references to the lives of many distinguished scholars and
men of affairs. If I confined myself to an account of the buildings the
problem would be simpler, but though they must form the chief topic of our
talk to-morrow, I would prefer to-day to say something about the growth of
the College. On these lines then I proceed, though necessarily in an
incomplete way, to state the outline of our story.
2. Trinity College was founded in 1546, just about half-way back in the
history of the University. Of those pre-Trinity days I will only say that the
University arose about the end of the twelfth century, and that it was nearly a
hundred
162
years after its establishment before the first college was founded.
Colleges were erected for the benefit of selected scholars who were
maintained at the expense of the foundation, and throughout the middle ages,
most of the students lived in Private Hostels. In Tudor times undergraduates
who paid their own expenses were admitted to colleges, and finally, every
student was required to be a member of one of these Houses: the peculiar
collegiate character of Oxford and Cambridge dates from this change. I need
hardly add that women were not (and are not) admissible as members of the
University, and that in former days teachers and students alike were
unmarried.
3. Towards the close of his reign, Henry VIII determined to found a college
at Cambridge which should promote his views on religion and the new

learning. He decided to use for the purpose the buildings and land occupied
or owned by two of the chief medieval colleges, King’s Hall and Michael-
House. Accordingly, under parliamentary powers, he compelled those
Societies to surrender to him their charters and possessions, purchased such
small parts of our present Great Court as did not belong to them, and gave all
this property to his new college together with large revenues from religious
houses which he had recently dissolved. The proceedings were high-handed,
but
163
we may say that the result justified him. It is believed that, during these
proceedings, the university careers of a few of the students, at any rate of
King’s Hall, were not interrupted, and that thus our academic life runs
without a break from the days of Edward II to the present time. Most of the
buildings of Michael-House have now disappeared, but our connection with
King’s Hall is still evident through the remains of its Cloister Court, our
Great Gate which bears an inscription commemorating the permanent
establishment of King’s Hall by Edward III, and our Clock Tower on which
is a statue of that monarch. To this group of buildings we must first direct
attention to-morrow.
4. Trinity was far larger than the colleges to whose buildings and property it
succeeded. Of course it has had ups and downs in its career, but it has
generally occupied and still occupies a predominant position in the
University. Thus in 1564, its residents numbered three hundred and six out of
a total of one thousand two hundred and sixty-seven in the University, while
last October [1905], it had five hundred and sixty-eight undergraduates out
of a total of two thousand eight hundred and thirty-five in the University, and
two hundred resident graduates out of one thousand and five in the
University: we now confine our normal entry to under two hundred a year,
and as long as this is so, our numbers cannot exceed a certain limit which we
have
164
long reached, so, as the University grows, the percentage of students on
our boards decreases. The College has always recognized that it was its duty
to be a centre of learning as well as one of higher education, and thanks to its
traditions and the large number of resident fellows, it has been able to fulfil
this double duty.
5. For the first few years after its foundation, Trinity was occupied in
settling the many problems which arise in a new foundation. As far as
accommodation went, the buildings of King’s Hall and Michael-House were
connected, and sufficed for immediate needs. Naturally the protestant

character of the foundation given by Henry was emphasized by the advisers
of Edward VI, the altar in the chapel being removed and a communion table
set up in Huguenot fashion in the middle of the building. Queen Mary
increased the foundation, and took a warm interest in its affairs; of course the
Roman service was then restored. Under Elizabeth the Anglican services
were resumed, and she completed the erection of the present chapel which
had been begun by her sister: it stands to-day externally much in its original
form, though the interior scheme of decoration is different. We may leave till
to-morrow the description of it and college doings connected therewith. This
first
165
chapter of our history ends in 1560 when the constitution of the College
was definitely established in a form which remained practically unaltered till
1861.
6. The next decade was critical. Many of those who had adopted the
reformed religion desired further changes on presbyterian lines, and
Cambridge, which had taken so prominent a part in the reformation, was
their chief intellectual stronghold. Their leader was Cartwright, a fellow of
Trinity, and their chief opponent was Whitgift, the master of the College:
thus a contest of national importance was mixed up with college politics and
carried on partly within the college walls. Whitgift’s powers as master were
large, and he strained them to the utmost to remove from the House those
who opposed him; times, however, were revolutionary and public opinion
condoned and even approved his actions. At any rate victory remained with
him and his party in the College, the University, and the State, and the
position of the Church of England between Rome and Geneva is that for
which he fought.
7. Whitgift acted as tutor to some of the students, among whom were
Francis Bacon and his brother Anthony: you will see the portrait of the
former (as also that of Whitgift) to-morrow, together with those of his
contemporaries, Edward Coke subsequently the great lawyer, and Robert
Devereux
166
earl of Essex the ill-fated favourite of Elizabeth. By a happy
accident some of Whitgift’s tutorial ledgers have been preserved, and we
have in them details of the expenditure of his pupils, which, combined with
information from other sources, enables us to give a fairly complete account
of their daily work, prayers, meals, and amusements30. A usual age for
commencing residence was fifteen or sixteen, and it would seem that
students then (though of course subject in many things to reasonable

restraints) were allowed that liberty of action which in my opinion is, even
though sometimes misused, an essential feature of university education as
opposed to the control of the pupil’s doings in every hour of the day which is
common in many schools. In 1577 Whitgift accepted a bishopric: an
eloquent farewell sermon preached in College from 2 Corinthians,
chapter 13, verse 2, revealed sincere affection for the place and moved his
audience, “insomuch that there were scarce any drie eyes to be found
amongst the whole number.” He left the House prosperous and of high
repute.
8. In 1593 Nevile was appointed master, and took in hand the needed
reconstruction
167
of the buildings. It had from the first been recognized that the
site offered opportunities for the erection of buildings worthy of the
reputation of the College, and he realized how much the effect would depend
on making the court large, and above all on keeping the chamber frontage
only two storeys high with attics above. The Great Court as it stands to-day
is his creation; the only obvious defect in it is the ugly block built in the
south-west corner in 1770 to replace Nevile’s set of combination rooms
which had an elevation agreeing generally with that of the master’s lodge,
but enriched by a large projecting trefoil oriel. The hall, kitchens,
combination rooms, and lodge form another group of buildings to which we
must pay attention to-morrow: the first two of these are in the form left by
Nevile. The blazoned glass in the hall and our collection of pictures in these
rooms, especially the portraits of Henry VIII, Mary, and Elizabeth, all of
whom have played an important part in our history, will well repay your
study. Nevile also built, at his own cost, part of the court situated on the west
side of the hall. This too we shall see to-morrow on our way to the library: in
his day, the court was closed on the river side by a low wall, in the middle of
which stood the stone gateway now used as the entrance to the College from
Trinity Lane, and beyond this wall were the tennis courts and paddocks.
9.168 The prince of Wales, afterwards Charles I, came to the College to inspect
these alterations, and he was followed later by James I. These visits are
commemorated by the statues of James, his wife, and Charles placed on the
west side of the Great Gate. The king was so pleased with his entertainment
that he repeated his visit on three subsequent occasions. Of Nevile, one of his
contemporaries wrote, “He never had his like for a splendid courteous and
bounteous gentleman,” and the College still gratefully honours his memory.

He was trusted and esteemed by Elizabeth, and when dying she selected him
to carry to Scotland the fateful letter in which she nominated James I to
succeed her. If you go into the dining room of the lodge you will see Nevile’s
portrait, hung in the place of honour over the mantelpiece, representing him
as holding this letter in one hand.
10. You must not think that under Nevile’s rule the energies of the College
were wholly directed to material ends. In a memorandum of 1607 on the use
of college emoluments for students, he was able to say that of the higher
church officials of the day, eleven deans, seven bishops, and the two
archbishops, were drawn from Trinity. In academic distinctions, in legal
appointments, and in statesmanship its records were equally satisfactory: so
the
169
College was worthily maintaining its tradition of service in church and
state. Under his immediate successors the College entered on a period of
steady prosperity. In the next generation, however, the shadows of the civil
disturbances of the seventeenth century began to fall; theological disputes
increased, scholarship in other subjects received but scanty attention, and a
general slackness in intellectual pursuits was visible, though it is fair to say
that among the students of the time were three or four who later deservedly
acquired reputation as poets. Among the latter I particularize George Herbert,
Abraham Cowley, and Andrew Marvell; Dryden entered a few years later.
11. On the outbreak of civil war the town was occupied by the
parliamentary forces, troops were quartered in the College, and a good deal
of damage done to the fabric. In 1644 a large number of the fellows were
expelled, their places being filled by zealots of but slight education. It may
be put to the credit of a few who were left, notably Duport and Ray, that in
this time of stress they devoted themselves to maintaining the standard of
scholarship. On the restoration such of the expelled fellows as were still alive
and unmarried resumed office. They decided that there should be no
retaliations, and that all those nominated to fellowships under the
commonwealth should be allowed to remain, provided only they did not
preach
170
in the chapel unless they were members of the Church of England:
that was a noble reply to the wrongs suffered.
12. The College took pride in resuming at once its position in the world of
letters and science, and the following years are famous for the work of
Pearson and Barrow, two great divines of the time, and above all of Isaac
Newton. The influence of the last-named philosopher on the studies and

intellectual life of Cambridge was far reaching. His discoveries in pure
mathematics, mechanics, physics, and dynamical astronomy were of the
utmost importance, and made Cambridge the centre of mathematical work in
England. I will show you to-morrow the rooms he occupied and in which he
wrote his famous Principia. The staircase on which these rooms are situated
has had other distinguished occupants: the rooms on the ground floor on the
right-hand side on entering it were occupied by Thackeray, and subsequently
by the late astronomer-royal; those on the opposite side by Macaulay; the
rooms on the first floor next the gate which once had been occupied by Isaac
Newton, were used later by Lightfoot, the theologian, and Jebb, the Greek
scholar; and those on the opposite side by Sir James Frazer, who has done so
much to investigate the beliefs of primitive man. This is an interesting group
of
171
men, but in fact there are few rooms in College which have not been
inhabited at some time by those who have made their names famous.
13. Barrow held the mastership from 1673 to 1677. On his initiative the
College erected, on the west side of Nevile’s Court, the magnificent library
which is now stored with literary treasures. This is another building to which
we must pay attention to-morrow, and with it we may associate the adjoining
chambers. From the close of the seventeenth century onwards we can
describe life in College, especially among undergraduates, in considerable
detail. The usual age of entry had risen to seventeen or eighteen. To the dons
the College offered a comfortable home until an opportunity occurred of
taking a college living, and it must be admitted that some were beginning to
be content to consider it as nothing more. Materials for the history of the
time and the following century have been published by Christopher
Wordsworth.
14. Towards the close of the seventeenth century, the number of entries fell;
this was attributed, and no doubt correctly, to the rise to office in College of
those fellows appointed by mandatory letters from James II—he having
filled every fellowship that became vacant during his reign. The history of
the Society during the early years of the eighteenth century may be
dismissed
172
with the briefest notice, for college energies were largely occupied
by domestic disputes, and the number of residents still further decreased:
these misfortunes were mainly due to the scandals inseparably associated
with the name of Bentley. Bentley held the mastership from 1700 to 1742:
his critical work can hardly be over-praised, but his career here was marked

by malversations and many dishonourable transactions. The only scholars of
the time I need mention are Cotes and Robert Smith who were
mathematicians of repute. The latter of these scholars, when master, did
something to restore orderly government and discipline.
15. It was not until near the close of the century that the College recovered
from the taint of Bentley’s misrule, and scholarship again flourished within
our walls: among the residents of the time was Porson, whose wit and
conversation must have been delightful features of the High Table of his day
—he lived in K 5, Great Court. Mathematics now afforded the chief avenue
to distinction, but some acquaintance with classics and moral philosophy was
also obligatory. This period is famous for the number of eminent judges
educated in the College: the strict training in formal logic and geometry
required for success in the mathematical tripos being especially favourable to
legal
173
work. Out of eleven such Trinity judges of the time the names of
Tindal, Pollock, Maule, Lyndhurst, Wensleydale, and Cranworth are still
remembered. Socially, manners were generally coarser than at any time
during the previous century or than later; though the revival of religion under
the influence of Simeon did something to ameliorate matters.
16. Unlike its predecessor the nineteenth century was one of unbroken
progress in college achievements and reputation. Near its commencement
two internal changes of some importance were introduced in the imposition
of an entrance examination test and of a limit to the number of those
admitted. None the less our numbers increased, and in 1823–25, another
court (the New Court) was built on the south side of that erected by Nevile.
At this time, conspicuous among the resident fellows were Sedgwick the
geologist, Peacock the mathematician, Scholefield, Hare, and Thirlwall,
Macaulay the historian, and Airy the astronomer: it would be difficult to
exaggerate their influence on the intellectual life of the College and
University. The undergraduate society a few years later also numbered a
group of men of exceptional power, notably Trench afterwards archbishop of
Dublin, Thackeray, Fitzgerald, Monckton Milnes (Lord Houghton),
Spedding, Arthur Hallam, Kinglake the historian, the three Tennysons
(Alfred, Charles, and Frederick), and Thompson; while a little later came
Alford,
174
Lushington, Grote, Tom Taylor, Burnand, and Francis Galton.
Materials left by these men, and books like J. M. F. Wright’s Alma Mater,
C. A. Bristed’s Five years in an English University, Leslie Stephen’s

Sketches from Cambridge by a Don, and W. Everett’s On the Cam, give us
full information of college life during the middle of the century. In
connection with the social life of the early half of the nineteenth century I
should note that athletic clubs now began to be formed—the First Trinity
Boat Club, constituted in 1825, being the earliest. These societies led to the
formulation of definite rules for various forms of sport, and to much more
attention being paid to out-door games. The subsequent growth of organized
recreations of this kind, increasingly developed in recent years, will strike
the future historian as one of the outstanding features of the last century.
17. In 1840 Whewell was appointed master. He was of commanding
abilities and exercised extraordinary influence: to him more than to any other
single individual is due that development of scientific studies at Cambridge
which has been so marked in the recent history of the University. Under him,
the prince of Wales, afterwards Edward VII, was entered at the College, and
later showed his appreciation of its influence by sending his eldest son, the
duke of Clarence, here. Whewell erected at his own cost the two courts on
the
175
east side of Trinity Street, the rents being used to encourage the study of
International Law in the University. During his mastership the old order
began to crumble, and new ideals of education, study, and research arose.
The Elizabethan statutes were replaced by transitional statutes in 1844 and
1861, and these in turn were replaced by others in 1882, under which the
College is now governed.
18. Whewell died in 1866, and was succeeded as master by Thompson, and
he in 1886 by Butler. With their masterships we come to the affairs of to-day.
The 1882 statutes opened a new chapter in our history; restrictions on the
marriage of fellows were removed, and successful teachers thus encouraged
to remain in residence; incidentally, this created a new social atmosphere. In
this and other ways the conditions of academic life were considerably
changed. We need not, however, shun a comparison with older times: if you
want to see how freely Trinity during the late Victorian period spent itself in
the public service look down any list of judges, bishops, statesmen, colonial
governors, and civil servants of the time, and in all you will find many
Trinity men conspicuous. Confining ourselves strictly to academic work in
Cambridge and to those who have now [1906] passed away, I may mention
the names of Clerk Maxwell in physics, of Cayley in mathematics, of Munro
and
176
Jebb in classics, of Thompson in Greek philosophy, of Sidgwick in

ethics, and of Westcott, Lightfoot, and Hort in theology: all of these were
fellows of the College, and professors in the University.
19. This is a bare summary of a complex story. Of the spirit that actuates the
College, of all that makes it a living Society, I have said little. In truth, these
are incapable of analysis. The charm that the place perennially exercises on
those who, generation after generation, make it their home, the affection it
inspires, are intangible: they exist, there are but few members of the House
who have not felt them, and perhaps that is all I need say on this aspect of
our history.

29 A paper read to a party of north-country students visiting the College in 1906.
30 On some of the items in Whitgift’s tutorial ledgers, see above, chapter ii, pp. 36–39:
the bills are printed at length in volumes 32 and 33 of the British Magazine, 1847, 1848.
Other information on the daily life of students of the time is given in the statutes of 1560.
An interesting list of the outfit and furniture in the rooms of a fellow-commoner in 1577
was printed by C. H. Cooper, Annals of Cambridge, vol. ii, pp. 352–356.

177
PART II.
Concerning the University.

179
CHAPTER XI.
THE BEGINNINGS OF THE MEDIEVAL UNIVERSITY.

heproblems connected with the beginnings of the University of
t Cambridge and the conditions of life in its early days have always
interested me. Much is uncertain and open to various readings31, but the
following is a summary of the story, as it appears to me.
First, as to the site of the University. About the end of the eleventh century,
Cambridge was little more than a village concentrated round St Peter’s
church, having separate hamlets in its vicinity, one near St Benet’s church
and the other at Newnham: at that time there was nothing to suggest the
likelihood of its being chosen by students as a place where they might live
and work in security. During the next century, however, it became of
considerable importance. This was due to several causes. The chief of these
were the castle erected in it by William the Conqueror to overawe the fen-
men;
180
its geographical location which gave it command of the river passage
by which most of the traffic between the midlands and the counties of
Norfolk and Suffolk went; its position as a port of entry for small sea-going
vessels coming from Lynn, of which a relic still survives in a bonded
warehouse on the banks of the Cam; its vicinity to Sturbridge common on
which came to be held one of the chief annual fairs in the kingdom; and
lastly the establishment here of the large monastic Houses of the Augustin
Canons, of the Brethren of St John’s Hospital, and of the Nuns of
St Rhadegund: it would seem also that it became32, maybe under the
authority of the secular canons of St Giles, the seat of a grammar-school or
schools. By 1200 the town had spread from castle-end to where Christ’s,
Peterhouse, and Queens’ now stand, and along the east side of the river
there were numerous small wharves, locally known as hythes. The writs of

Henry I and Henry II and the charter of John bear witness to its importance
in their reigns, but later this tended to diminish relatively to other towns.
The Universities of Cambridge and Oxford were initiated near the end of
the twelfth century, both arising in towns free from disorder and where
accommodation for students was obtainable. It was a time when men of
scholarly
181
tastes, especially those resident in religious houses, were
conscious of their ignorance of recent developments in theology as set out
by Peter Lombard and in canon law, and were keen to study these subjects
and scholastic logic. Schools to meet these needs arose in Cambridge and
Oxford and became permanent. Like centres of instruction were established
in other places, but for one reason or another did not survive long as degree-
granting corporations.
It is not known whether the University of Cambridge began with a few
teachers taking up their residence in the town, giving instruction, and
attracting students and other teachers, or whether it started ready-made by a
migration of a body of discontented teachers and students from some
existing school. I believe the former view to be correct. If so, we may
reasonably assume that a considerable proportion of the earliest adult
students were previously living in monastic houses here or in the
neighbouring fenland monasteries at Ely, Peterborough, or Croyland. It has
been suggested that at first the lectures were given in the local grammar-
schools: this is probable, and would fit in with the secular organization of
the University and the fact that boys learning Latin grammar (glomerels)
were reckoned among its students. Probably the movement was started with
the
182
sanction and direct encouragement of the bishop of Ely, certainly it was
not directly monastic, and more likely the teachers were secular clerks and
not monks. I conjecture that at first the lecturers were strangers to the
locality, but this in no way implies that a fragment of another university,
students as well as teachers, migrated here as an organized body.
Whatever the origin of the University, its members organized themselves
for mutual aid and protection as a Studium on the model of that at Paris,
with which it seems later to have been frequently in touch. If we may trust
ancient traditions quoted by Bulaeus and Peacock, the early University had
also some connection with the studium of Orleans: this is possible but
speculative. Bologna represented another type of organization which,

however, was not adopted anywhere in England. The University of
Cambridge existed in working order in 1209, and in my opinion its origin
may be safely assigned to some time in the previous twenty years.
Of its external history during the century following its organization we
know little: we read of its chancellor in 1225, of French students coming to
it in 1229, of special privileges conferred by the crown in 1231 and 1251, of
its recognition by the pope in 1233, and finally of a papal grant in 1318—
exceptional in extent—of all rights which were or could be enjoyed by any
university
183
in Christendom. Oxford went through somewhat similar stages.
The two universities were closely connected, and by 1333 their position had
become so firmly established that they agreed not to recognize any other
studium in the kingdom, and in fact after that year no other university was
established in England until less than a century ago.
Originally the main source of university authority was the body of active
teachers (regents) acting with the concurrence of the chancellor who
represented the bishop of Ely; their grouping in faculties was an obvious
development, and probably took place early in the thirteenth century.
Resident graduates who had ceased to teach (non-regents) were allowed a
voice on matters of property, rights, and privileges. The establishment of
monasteries and colleges with administrative officers tended to retain in
residence graduates who were not lecturing; through them the house of non-
regents grew in power, and finally in many questions obtained concurrent
jurisdiction with that of the regents—the result was a very complex
constitution. At first the University had no buildings of its own; the regent
and non-regent houses met in St Benet’s or St Mary’s church, and lectures
were given wherever accommodation could be obtained. After this
digression I return to the position of the students in the early University.
Numerous
184
monasteries were established in Cambridge during the thirteenth
century, and from this I infer that the number of members of the religious
Orders studying in the University steadily increased during that century. Of
monastic Houses in Cambridge previous to the foundation of the University
I have already mentioned those of the Augustin Canons, founded in
connection with St Giles’ church, about 1092, and moved in 1112 to
Barnwell where their priory became in time one of the largest conventual
buildings in England, and of the Austin Brethren of Frost’s or St John’s

Hospital, built about 1135 on ground now occupied by St John’s College.
Shortly after the organization of a studium in the town, five important
Orders established Houses here. These were the Franciscan or Grey Friars,
who, from their first home situated near the present Divinity Schools and
used from 1224 to 1294, removed in 1294 to a site now occupied by Sidney
Sussex College, where their church was one of the conspicuous
architectural features of medieval Cambridge; the Dominican or Black
Friars, who built in 1274 on ground now occupied by Emmanuel College;
the Carmelite or White Friars, who, having previously lived in houses at
Chesterton and Newnham, removed in 1290 to a site now occupied by
Queens’
185
and King’s Colleges; the Augustine Friars, who built, about 1290, a
home on or near ground now occupied by the university examination halls
and lecture rooms, in the basement of which some fragments of the old
friary may be found; and the Sempringham or White Canons, who about
1290 obtained possession of St Edmund’s Priory which had been built
before 1278 near the Trumpington Gate. The Houses of the Bethlehem
Friars, opened in 1257, of the Friars of the Sack, opened in 1258, and of the
Friars of St Mary, opened in 1273, were suppressed in 1307, and probably
were never important foundations. I believe that the presence in Cambridge
of these great establishments, always housing a certain number of students,
gave stability to the nascent University, and tended to prevent its dissipation
in times of stress: this is a point in our early history which is sometimes
overlooked. Students from Houses of the Benedictine or Black Monks were
also sent to Cambridge, but until 1428 they seem to have had no special
home of their own: in that year the Order built for them a hostel known as
Buckingham House which now forms part of the first court of Magdalene
College.
These conventual Houses were outside town and university authority, but
their wealth and position made them influential. Striking evidence of this is
afforded by the facts that they secured to their members the right to proceed
direct
186
to degrees in divinity without graduating in arts—a privilege not
granted to students in law or medicine—and that at every congregation of
the University the senior religious doctor present could veto the offer of any
grace and so block all business. These privileges suggest that monastic
students were the dominant class in the early days of the University. They
were, however, naturally distrusted by other students, for admittedly they

owed allegiance to outside bodies, and no man can serve two masters. By
the end of the thirteenth century the monastic movement had spent its force,
and thenceforth the religious students took a constantly decreasing share in
university activities; of course they disappeared at the reformation, when
the monasteries throughout the country were suppressed.
I come next to the question of the secular students in arts, most or all of
whom would be clerks in major or minor orders. Rejecting the migration
theory of the origin of the University, I do not suppose that in its earliest
days these secular students were numerous, for the vicinity cannot have
provided many such men, but as soon as the University acquired reputation
as a centre of higher teaching they would be attracted to it from a wide area,
and their numbers would be increased by many glomerels who would
continue their course as students in arts. In the course of the thirteenth
century
187
these secular students became strong enough to assert themselves
against the position and privileges assumed by the religious students, and
after that century graces were constantly passed (ex. gr. in 1303) to prevent
monastic interference in academic affairs, or (as in 1369) to limit the
number of monastic graduates.
A non-graduate student in arts was, before admission, expected to know
Latin, and, on admission, apprenticed to a master or doctor who acted as a
tutor in scholastic matters: in 1276 this system of apprenticeship was made
compulsory. The full medieval course lasted several years. Students who
entered as boys stayed, if they took the full course, till they were grown
men, gradually taking up teaching as part of their course of study. The
bachelors may have assisted in the education of the younger arts students
and of the glomerels who are mentioned below, but normally instruction in
the arts course was given by masters, and in the higher faculties by doctors.
The degree of master was a license to teach, and newly created masters
were required to teach and to reside for two years (or later at least one year)
for that purpose. This pre-reformation scheme is in marked contrast to the
modern plan where the students enter as young men, all of about the same
age,
188
with a normal course lasting three years or so, and with their studies
sharply differentiated from those of a limited number of post-graduate and
research students and of a separate body of teachers. Mullinger estimated
that during the medieval period the number of resident regents varied from
one hundred to two hundred, and the number of students (apparently

exclusive of monastic students) never exceeded two thousand of whom the
great majority were of humble birth; no doubt there were wide variations in
the numbers at different times.
The history of Guilds in the University cannot be given with any certainty.
It may be that in the early years of the University most secular students and
teachers from any particular locality were associated together as a guild,
and perhaps every student on arrival was expected to join his local guild,
and through it become a member of the University. The guilds imposed on
their members definite rules for their conduct in relation to one another, and
enforced such regulations by means of money fines, refusal of assistance,
and in extreme cases expulsion. The relations between the members of
different guilds were, however, often unfriendly or worse; in particular
there was constant friction between the guilds connected with localities
north and south of the Trent. It has been suggested that at one time one of
the proctors represented the cis-trentine guilds and the other the trans-
trentine
189
guilds: this seems to have been the case at Oxford, but there is no
evidence of such a custom at Cambridge where, according to Peacock, these
trentine disputes were less violent than at the sister University.
We may take it that the master to whom a secular non-graduate student was
apprenticed looked after his studies, and probably officers of the guild to
which he belonged looked after him when sick or maltreated. In other
matters, however, he was left to take care of himself, and thus was
constantly liable to extortion. To meet this evil, the University early
obtained powers enabling it to settle, without consulting the citizens,
various local matters such as the prices of lodging and food.
Besides students in arts there was also another class of secular students
consisting of boys, known as glomerels (grammarians) and rhetoricians,
who were under a special officer of the University called the master of
glomery. I conjecture that originally these were the boys at the local
grammar-schools, that after the foundation of the University such boys were
regularly treated as glomerel members of it, and that for this reason we hear
nothing more of the local grammar-schools which had at first supplied
them: most students of this type must have lived at home and come from
the town or immediate neighbourhood. I suppose that in later times the
number
190
of glomerels was swollen by the entry among them of students who

had come to Cambridge, and were found to be ignorant of Latin grammar,
and so inadmissible to the arts faculty.
The chief study of a glomerel was Latin grammar, and on attaining
reasonable proficiency in it he could change over to the arts faculty if he
wished. If a student continued in the glomerel faculty, the degree of master
in grammar (or rhetoric) was open to him, but in processions of the
University, such graduates took a lower place than students in arts, and their
inferior position was emphasized by a statute which, while regulating the
attendance of regents at the funeral of a regent master or student in arts,
stated that graduates and scholars in grammar were not entitled to such
recognition—Illis tantummodo exceptis, qui artem solam docent vel audiunt
grammaticam, ad quorum exequias nisi ex devotione non veniant
supradicti.
The ceremony of graduation in grammar has often been described: it
involved the beating openly in the schools of a shrewd boy obtained by the
university officers for the purpose, and the presentation to the new master
of a ferule: this suggests that the course was regarded as a training for a
schoolmaster’s career, it also facilitated admission to orders. As time
passed, the glomerels, originally forming a large and important section of
the
191
University here and at Oxford, decreased in numbers, and in the latter
half of the fifteenth century they ceased to be of much importance in
academic life. The faculty of rhetoric was constituted on similar lines to that
of grammar, and practically treated as part of it. The last degrees in rhetoric
and grammar of which we have notice were conferred in 1493 and 1548
respectively: probably the office of master of glomery fell into disuse about
the beginning of the sixteenth century, though it is possible that it was held
by Sir John Cheke as late as 1547.
The evils consequent on allowing inexperienced students, some of whom
were quite young, to fend for themselves in all matters outside the schools
were obvious, and it was not long before steps were taken to improve
matters by the foundation of colleges and the licensing of private hostels.
Colleges were designed for selected scholars partly to provide assistance for
them, and partly to protect them from pressure to join a monastic Order: the
advantages offered being shelter, a common sitting room properly warmed,

regular meals, the use of books, and general supervision. The earliest
attempt to provide aid and protection of this kind for certain scholars was
made, about 1275, by Hugh de Balsham, who arranged for their reception
as members of Frost’s Hospital; but there were constant quarrels between
the
192
two sides of the House, and in 1284 he dissolved the union and moved
the secular students to a building (Peterhouse) of their own. Other similar
foundations were soon created: the King’s Scholars (later incorporated as
King’s Hall) in 1317, Michael-House in 1324, Clare in 1325, Pembroke in
1347, Gonville in 1348, Trinity Hall in 1350, and Corpus Christi in 1352.
Every new college that was established provided fresh definite ties with the
locality, and rendered less likely the break-up of the University and the
scattering of its members—a serious risk to which in early days it was
always subject. Then came an interval of nearly a hundred years, but in the
fifteenth century the collegiate movement recommenced, and we have the
foundation of God’s House in 1439, of King’s in 1441, of Queens’ in 1448
and 1465, of St Catharine’s in 1473, and of Jesus in 1496. In the sixteenth
century we have the larger and more ambitious foundations of Christ’s in
1505, St John’s in 1511, Magdalene in 1519, Trinity in 1546, Emmanuel in
1584, and Sidney Sussex in 1596.
The colleges were intended for picked scholars. In the course of the
fourteenth century the problem of the care of other students was taken up,
and they were forbidden to live in lodgings selected by themselves and
under no external supervision. To provide for them, the University licensed
private hostels which were managed by masters of arts on lines somewhat
similar
193
to boarding houses in public schools to-day. Thenceforth throughout
the middle ages the majority of undergraduates resided in these hostels.
Caius gave the names and sites of twenty-seven private hostels which he
had known and all of which closed their doors during his life, the last in
1540: Fuller enumerated thirty-four hostels and two “inns” while his editor
mentioned fourteen other hostels, but some of these certainly ought not to
be included under the term. Perhaps we may say that the number open at
anyone time rarely exceeded thirty or fell short of twenty: some were cheap,
some expensive; some were well managed, others not so. After the
development of these hostels the guilds decreased in importance, and finally
disappeared.

With the establishment of colleges and private hostels the University was
fairly launched on its career in a form which lasted till the middle half of
the sixteenth century. My object was to state how, in my opinion, it
originally took shape, and I do not propose here to follow its history further.

31 Most of the known facts are given in Mullinger’s excellent histories, Peacock’s
Observations on the Statutes, and Rashdall’s Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages
—but all the views of the last-named writer are not universally accepted.
32 See passim G. Peacock, Observations on the Statutes, London, 1841, p. xxxv.

194
CHAPTER XII.
DISCIPLINE.

his paper contains some extracts from my notebooks on the way in

t which university and college discipline was maintained in former days
at Cambridge. The records on the subject are scanty, but I think the facts
are worth putting together in a connected form. There is no reason to
suppose that the practices of different colleges varied materially, and if in
the later period I have taken examples from the records of Trinity it is only
because I have had easier access to them.
In the history of university discipline and social customs abrupt changes are
not to be expected, and none such are noticeable in the transition from the
medieval period, circ. 1200 to 1525, through the renaissance, circ. 1525 to
1640, and the period of stagnation, circ. 1660 to 1820, to the present age of
reconstruction and extension. I begin naturally with discipline in medieval
Cambridge.
In the early days of the University the students lodged in the town and were
of all ages from twelve or thirteen upwards. Except in strictly academic
matters, there was little or no supervision of their conduct, and, outside the
schools,
195
grave disorders were common; the University, however, claimed
power, when it chose, to take cognizance of all offences contrary to good
manners, and at any rate in later days did so in serious cases. The
regulations at Cambridge and Oxford were so similar that we may fairly
draw illustrations from either University, and the records of the chancellor’s
court at Oxford in the fifteenth century show that fines, imprisonment, and,
in extreme cases, expulsion were customary penalties for serious offences

against university regulations and customs. I have no doubt that earlier
records, if extant, would be of the same general character.
The first college to be founded at Cambridge was Peterhouse which took its
final form in 1284, and during the next century several other similar Houses
were established: these societies were intended for selected scholars. The
problem of the control of other students was met in the course of the
fourteenth century by preventing them from living in private lodgings
chosen by themselves, and thenceforth, throughout the middle ages, those
who came from a distance were generally required to reside in private
hostels run by masters of arts on lines somewhat similar to boarding houses
in public schools to-day. Besides the lay and secular students
accommodated in colleges, private hostels, and at their homes, there were
also
196
in the medieval University a considerable number of “religious”
students who were housed in monasteries or monastic hostels. Some of the
colleges in later medieval times received as paying members a few wealthy
pensioners, parochial priests in middle life, and even monks from distant
convents, but probably the number of such favoured students was never
large. With the establishment of colleges and the organization of private
hostels discipline improved; inside their walls as well as in the monastic
hostels it is probable that order was well maintained, but outside them, at
least among the students at private hostels, discipline was left to the
university authorities who did little or nothing in the matter.
The colleges took seriously their responsibilities for discipline, and all
things contrary to good manners and morals were prohibited. For the
gravest offences, such as contumacy, crimes of violence, and heresy,
expulsion was usually ordered. Among less serious delinquencies, explicitly
forbidden and therefore we may assume not unknown, were bringing
strangers into the house, sleeping out, and absence without leave; using
insulting language, drunkenness, gambling, and frequenting taverns;
keeping company with loose women; throwing missiles and carrying arms;
and the keeping of dogs, hawks, falcons, and ferrets. In the regulations of
many
197
colleges, a course of study was indicated, and directions given that
idleness was to be punished. Regular attendance at religious exercises was
assumed, and was explicitly directed on certain occasions: I suppose that
students performed such duties without much external pressure, and I know
no record of the infliction of any penalty in early times for non-attendance.

In the middle ages Latin was the language generally enforced, though
occasionally French was permitted; this remained the rule until the
seventeenth century. Conversation during dinner and supper was forbidden
in many colleges, and of course was impossible in those cases where some
book was then read aloud. At King’s College, jumping and ball throwing,
and at Clare College meetings in bedrooms for feasting and talking were
also forbidden. At a somewhat later date Caius ordered his students to be in
bed by eight o’clock at night, but they made up for this by rising very early
in the morning. In general the punishment for minor faults was left to the
discretion of the authorities. This was only reasonable, for a medieval
college was a mixed community of lads and men, the members being of all
ages from about fourteen or fifteen upwards; and rules enforced on boys of
fourteen could not be applied to men of twenty-three or twenty-four, who
were in fact already taking part in the teaching of the junior scholars.
For
198
all members, the ultimate penalty for the gravest offences was
expulsion. For less serious misconduct, fines, restrictions on the food
supplied, impositions, and confinement within the walls, are believed to
have been common penalties, at any rate for adolescents; but, as I explain
below, I think that corporal punishment was constantly inflicted on non-
adults in lieu of a fine, which indeed boys would have had considerable
difficulty in paying. As far as the younger students and the bachelors at
colleges were concerned the extant regulations in regard to their exercises,
amusements, incomings and outgoings, suggest that they were treated much
like the junior and senior boys in a rather strict public school in the first half
of the nineteenth century; and perhaps the senior graduate members were
treated somewhat like residents in colleges at the same period.
Membership of a college was a privilege confined, in general, to scholars
specially nominated, and no doubt the standards of work and discipline
there were higher than in the private hostels. Naturally we know less of life
in these hostels, but it is likely that disciplinary rules were originally made
by or with the approval of the elder residents, and that the normal discipline
in them was of the same general character as that exercised in colleges,
though,
199
as the members paid for themselves, money fines were possible and
usual penalties, especially in the case of the older members. There must
have been more variety in the discipline of hostels than of colleges, and we
may safely say that some hostels were well conducted, others not so.

It is possible that finally the University claimed the right to examine and
supervise the internal regulations of the hostels. A set of rules, thus enforced
on an unendowed hall at Oxford in the fifteenth century, has been
discovered and printed by Rashdall: they do not differ much from those
usual at a college, except that some of the penalties specified are pecuniary,
and that the principal was given explicit permission, if he wished, to flog a
student, even though the lad’s own master (i.e. the master to whom he had
been apprenticed) had certified that he had already corrected him or was
willing to do so.
Was corporal punishment commonly used in medieval times? Until recently
it was accepted without argument that this was the case; and certainly in the
fifteenth century and later when we get detailed information on the subject,
the younger students were subject to it. Rashdall, however, has argued that
the absence of its mention in earlier times implies that the birch was
unknown in the ordinary university regulations till towards the end of the
sixteenth century or later, though he admits in various places that glomerels
were
200
liable to it: his authority is accepted by Rait. It is true that in the
statutes given in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, birching is not
mentioned explicitly, but, since the punishments for petty offences are
rarely specified in detail, this proves nothing. In the fifteenth century
corporal punishment is mentioned as a recognized penalty. For instance, the
statutes given by Henry VI to King’s College, Cambridge, prescribed that
scholars and young fellows might be punished by stripes, and a year or two
later, the statutes of Magdalen College, Oxford, directed that the demies
should be subject to flogging. In later regulations of various colleges, to
some of which I refer below, whipping is mentioned as a recognized
punishment, but often as one to which only the younger students were
liable.
I have already argued that in medieval colleges discipline must have varied
according to the age of the offender, and I conjecture that adults were never
regularly subject to corporal punishment, but that boys were always so, and
that the use of the rod was regarded as needing no explicit statutable
authority. Its employment was no strange thing, for adult offenders against
the law, apprentices, and boys at school, were all flogged at times. And
what else, it has been well asked, could the authorities do with a
troublesome boy of fourteen? In general a fine was impossible for he had no

pocket-money.
201
Most of the colleges were designed for poor scholars, and in
such foundations usually the allowance for commons was so small that
without risk to health any reduction for more than a day or two was
difficult; little leisure was allowed for recreation or exercise, and thus heavy
impositions were impossible; and confinement to the precincts of the House
was so common that gating was no punishment. A lad of seventeen or
eighteen had more liberty and privileges, and in general on reaching that
age was as safe from the chance of corporal punishment as was a boy of the
same age at a public school fifty years ago.
Somewhat similar arguments apply to the private hostels, and the
regulations of an unendowed hall at Oxford, to which I have already
referred, show that the use of the rod or birch was recognized there. If as I
suppose is likely, Clement Paston was at a private hostel, we have a definite
instance of the similar use of the rod at Cambridge, for among the Paston
letters is one dated 28 January 1458 from Dame Agnes Paston, about her
boy, Clement, in which she says “prey Grenefeld to send me feythfully
word by wrytyn who (how) Clement Paston hathe do his dever i lerning.
And if he hathe nought do well, nor wyll nought amend, prey him that he
wyll trewly belassch (i.e. flog) him tyll he wyll amend, and so ded the last
Maystur
202
and ye best, that ev’ he hadd at Cambrege.” Clement was born in
1442, so he was then fifteen years old.
I asserted above that school-boys in the middle ages were liable to the birch
or cane. I suppose this will not be questioned, but by way of parenthesis I
add that this liability seems to have been a well-established practice for
centuries. It goes back to classical times for in the schools of Rome the less
serious offences were punished by the cane applied to the hand, and graver
faults by the birch applied to the back; and there is a curious fresco at
Herculaneum of the application of the latter to a boy, horsed by one
schoolfellow and with his feet held by another. The royal whipping boys in
the courts of Western Europe remind us that, at least vicariously, princes
were subject to this discipline as well as commoners.
In more recent times the deeds of Busby and Keate at Westminster and Eton
respectively are preserved in tradition, while the reputation of Udall at an
earlier time, circ. 1530, may be gathered from the remarks of Thomas
Tusser, a choirboy at St Paul’s Cathedral, who subsequently went to Eton:

Tusser says, “From Paul’s I went, to Eton sent, To learn straightways the
Latin phrase Where fifty-three stripes giv’n to me, at once I had. For faults
but
203
small, or none at all, It came to pass thus beat I was.” The similar vigour
of Udall’s successor, Cox, is mentioned by Ascham. In short, the old saw:
“Spare the rod, and spoil the child, Solomon said in accents mild, Be it boy
or be it maid, Whip ’em and wallop ’em Solomon said” represented the
current belief and practice of former days; though the dictum attributed to
that king is stronger than the passage in Proverbs, xiii, 24 warrants.
In the sixteenth century the colleges opened their doors to the admission of
pensioners and fellow-commoners. Collegiate teaching and arrangements
were superior to those of the private hostels, and before the middle of the
century the latter had disappeared: their revival was rendered impossible by
a regulation that membership of the University should be confined to those
who were members of a college. Shortly afterwards it became the custom
not to require residence for degrees after the baccalaureate, and thus a
course limited to three or four years became usual for the average student.
These changes were of far-reaching importance.
In the course of this century new statutes were given to the University and
colleges, and subsequently we possess records, fairly complete, of the
domestic life of students. Early in the following century, the average age of
entry began to rise, and before its close, it had become common for students
to defer entry until about seventeen years old.
University
204
decrees regulating the conduct of students in many matters now
appear, notably one in 1595 by Goad, then vice-chancellor, which gives a
summary of what was expected. Expulsion, suspension from degrees, and
refusal of leave to graduate until after a specified time, were normal
punishments for serious offences, for trivial misconduct fines are now
constantly prescribed, and physical punishments for non-adults are also
directed in many cases.
In colleges, the Tudor statutes generally enjoined good conduct on all
students. The regulations about the punishment of offences were mostly
concerned with grave matters for which admonitions, and finally
expulsions, were the recognized punishments. Penalties for the non-
performance of religious exercises now appear: thus, at Christ’s College,

Cambridge, and at Balliol College, Oxford, whipping was prescribed as a
penalty for absence from chapel, though probably restricted to the younger
students; so too at Peterhouse, students over eighteen who were absent from
prayers were to be fined, while younger students so offending were to be
deprived of dinner, and if persistent in their neglect flogged in hall.
As in medieval times, the authorities were generally left a free hand in
settling
205
the regulations for the maintenance of normal discipline. Probably
fines, impositions, restrictions on the food supplied, and gatings continued
to be ordinarily used. Reading the bible aloud at meal times in hall, dining
apart on bread and water, and being deprived of commons, are definitely
mentioned in the 1520 statutes of St John’s College, Cambridge, as possible
penalties; similarly at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, being compelled to
eat alone at a small table in the middle of the hall and restriction to bread
and water are specified as suitable punishments.
The use of the birch was now constantly prescribed, though probably in
practice always confined to lads. Thus, at Christ’s College, Cambridge, a
whipping for lads and a fine for adults; and at Brasenose, Oxford, a fine or a
flogging, at the discretion of the principal, were statutable punishments for
various faults, including at the latter College the making of odious
comparisons in conversation. At other Houses too, for instance, at Corpus
Christi, Oxford, Wolsey (Christ Church), Oxford, Trinity College,
Cambridge, and Gonville and Caius, Cambridge, the use of the cane or
birch is sanctioned in the case of lads. I have no doubt this was also the
general rule in earlier days, and nothing in the Tudor codes indicates that
any material change was made in the existing practice, but on the whole I
conjecture that the regulations were more humane, and I am inclined to
think,
206
contrary to Rashdall’s view, that discipline was less severe after the
renaissance than before it. In colleges the deans were and are the chief
officers responsible for discipline; in the University, the proctors.
A part of the fifth chapter of the Trinity statutes of 1560 relating to the
office of deans may be summarized as indicating what was then customary,
or at any rate desired, in the matter of chapel attendance and in certain
questions of petty discipline. The statute, which is in Latin, is to the
following effect:

In every community regard should be paid to correctness of morals and general probity of life,
accordingly there shall be two deans to give their sedulous attention to these objects; at least one
of such deans shall be a bachelor of divinity and chosen from the eight senior fellows, and the
other, a master of arts or a bachelor of divinity.
The deans shall provide for the fitting performance of public worship; see that all fellows,
scholars, pensioners, sizars, and subsizars attend on Saints’ days and Sundays at morning and
evening prayers, the litany, the communion, and sermons; and see that the same persons are on
other days regularly present at prayers between five and six o’clock in the morning. Every
fellow who is absent shall be fined three half-pence, and if he comes in late or goes out early,
one half-penny. The fine for a bachelor scholar who is absent shall be one penny, and for one
who comes in late or goes out early, one half-penny. Every undergraduate scholar, and every
pensioner, sizar, and subsizar who is absent shall, if his age exceeds eighteen years be fined one
half-penny, and if he comes in late or goes out early, one farthing; but if such student has not
attained this age, he shall be chastised with rods in the hall on the following Friday. Those are to
207
be deemed as coming late who at evening prayers arrive after the first psalm; at morning
prayers, after the Venite; at the Litany, after the words O Holy Blessed and Glorious Trinity; and
at the communion service after the recital of the commandments: anyone who, during service,
remains in the antechapel is to be punished as if he had been absent.
Each week on Friday, at seven o’clock in the evening, the deans shall chastise non-adult
offenders. All scholars (bachelors excepted), pensioners, sizars, and subsizars shall be present
during the infliction of such corporal punishment, and anyone who does not answer to his name
when called, and does not stay until all the punishments are finished, shall, if an adult, be fined
one penny, and if non-adult be flogged on the next day.
Each week on Thursday, the deans shall appoint two monitors from among the bachelor scholars
for noting offences of bachelors; and six monitors [from among the undergraduate scholars],
two for noting offences of undergraduates at public worship, and four for noting those who fail
to speak Latin: the monitors shall prepare lists of all who offend in these particulars. The deans
shall also appoint each week six scholars and four sizars for service at the fellows’ table, and
one sizar for the organ.
In order to ensure the decorous celebration of public worship, the deans shall bring with them to
the first vespers of every festival a written schedule of the duties of everyone concerned in that
festival, and shall further appoint an inquisitor who shall remind everyone of the duty so
assigned to him. Anyone who shall fail in such duty shall, if a non-adult, be whipt, and, if an
adult, be fined fourpence.
One half of all fines inflicted shall go to the College, the other half shall be kept by the deans.

The
208
Tudor statutes generally remained in force till the middle of the
nineteenth century, though in time the practices of the colleges came to
differ materially from what was there directed. Briefly we may say that in
the sixteenth century the standard of medieval discipline and study sank;
but in the early years of the seventeenth century things improved until the
civil disturbances threw academic work into confusion. With the
establishment of the commonwealth the age of entry rose, and thus the use
of corporal and puerile punishments died out, and with the disappearance of

boys as members of the University, rules intended only for young lads
became obsolete and inoperative. Most of the students henceforth were
adolescent. The few who were younger were dealt with like school-boys,
but the comparison is rather with school-boys of recent years than with
those of their own period.
As far back as Sir Simon D’Ewes’s time—and he entered Cambridge in
1618—the majority of the students were regarded as responsible, and
capable of conducting themselves rationally. They reflected the virtues and
foibles of their time, but they were a select class, and compare favourably in
manners and morals with their contemporaries elsewhere. Almost without
exception they speak warmly of their development in college from lads to
young
209
men, of friendships formed with their elders as well as their
contemporaries, of the abiding influence of the place, and of their affection
for it.
From the restoration to the regency was a period of stagnation. Discipline
deteriorated, and if we may trust contemporary accounts drunkenness and
immorality were far from uncommon. No doubt there were always some
residents who maintained high traditions and ideals, but on the whole the
records of the social life prevalent then at Cambridge and Oxford make but
sorry reading.
The sixteenth century codes indicate lofty aims, but statutes and rules are
not always observed literally, and it may be thought that those mentioned
represented only old customs, perhaps already obsolete, or what was
deemed desirable but was not enforced. It may be well then to turn to
contemporary evidence, to regulations passed on specific occasions, and to
records of definite punishments—though we can expect the latter to have
been preserved only in grave cases, and cannot hope to learn from them
much about discipline in petty matters.
Contemporary evidence would serve us best if we could get it, but the
diarists and letter-writers are mostly silent on the subject. From this,
however, I conclude that generally the disciplinary regulations were thought
sensible. Life in the University may have been hard and probably was so,
but
210
I do not believe that discipline was unreasonable. All the evidence is to
the contrary. Thus the above-mentioned Tusser, a student of no special

brilliancy, who entered at Trinity Hall in the early half of the sixteenth
century speaks thankfully of leaving school, and says: “To Cambridge
thence ... I got at last, There joy I felt, there trim I dwelt, There heaven from
hell, I shifted well, With learned men, a number then, the time I passed.”
Coming now to definite punishments, I mention successively corporal
punishments, such as birching, the use of the stocks, and stanging; fines,
direct and indirect; deprivation of days or standing; gatings; impositions;
declaratory confessions; and rustications and expulsions.
Birching, Flogging. Birching remained a recognized punishment for the
younger students in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, but I think that
in practice it was not often inflicted except on boys. One or two examples
of orders directing it will suffice.
On 8 May 1572, the Vice-Chancellor, Whitgift, issued an order which is so
detailed that I write it at length. Here it is:
If any scholar shall go into any river, pool, or other water in the county of Cambridge; by day or
night, to swim or wash, he shall, if under the degree of bachelor of arts, for the first offence be
sharply and severely whipped publicly in the common hall of the College in which he dwells, in
211
the presence of all the fellows, scholars, and others dwelling in the College, and on the next day
shall be again openly whipped in the public school, where he was or ought to be an auditor,
before all the auditors, by one of the proctors or some other assigned by the Vice-Chancellor,
and for the second offence every such delinquent shall be expelled his College and the
University for ever. But if he shall be a bachelor of arts, then for the first offence he shall be put
in the stocks for a whole day, in the common hall of his College, and shall, before he is
liberated, pay 10s towards the commons of the College, and for the second offence shall be
expelled his College and the University. And if he shall be a master of arts, or bachelor of law,
physic or music, or of superior degree, he shall be severely punished, at the judgment and
discretion of the Master of his College.

From this it is clear that at that time undergraduates, even of mature age,
were liable to be flogged as a part of the ordinary discipline of the
University and College, but probably it was unusual to inflict the penalty.
Thirty years later, after the disturbances of 20 February 1607, following the
performance of a comedy in King’s College, an order was issued that
thereafter every ringleader in any similar disturbances should be banished
from the University: and every less responsible offender should, if a
graduate, pay for the harm done, be suspended from his degree, and for one
year
212
refused leave to take a further degree; and if a non-graduate should for
one year be refused leave to graduate, and further, if non-adult, be corrected

in the schools by the rod, and, if adult, make an open confession of his guilt
in the schools: also the offender if not a scholar should be set in the stocks
at the bull ring in the market place. Here, it will be noticed, the punishment
by the rod is restricted to those non-adulti.
In a list of punishments inflicted at Corpus Christi College in 1622, quoted
by Lamb, admonitions, fines, suspensions, and whippings are mentioned.
Even as late as 1648 there is a record of “Benton per Tutorem suum
Magistrum Johnson virgis castigandis.”
In 1648 an undergraduate bible-clerk of Peterhouse, age about seventeen,
Tobias Conyers by name was “corrected publicly”—which, I take it, means
flogged—for toasting the king. But times were abnormal, and if Conyers
ventured into the stirring field of politics, he had to take the consequences.
The liability to a flogging still existed after the restoration. Thus in the Poor
Scholar, by R. Nevile, London, 1662, there are references to it in Act ii,
Scene 6, and Act v, Scene 4, as being still in use in colleges though whether
adults were so liable is uncertain. If the author’s statements refer to
contemporary
213
matters and are trustworthy it would seem that the
punishment was then common, the culprits being mounted on barrels, and
the flogging inflicted at the butteries. The birch was also still occasionally
used in university discipline, for on 20 March 1674, the vice-chancellor
ordered Ellethorpe of St John’s, and Hodges of Sidney Sussex to be
whipped for having been rude to the junior proctor, Peter Parham, of Caius
College: neither of the offenders had matriculated.
These references provide the strongest evidence with which I am
acquainted for the assertions that flogging was a usual punishment at
Cambridge during the seventeenth century. There is a widely spread
tradition that when at Christ’s College, Milton was flogged, but Peile has
shown that there is no satisfactory evidence for it, and it is intrinsically
improbable. In a disciplinary order of Corpus Christi College in 1684, the
only punishments mentioned are discommonsings, admonitions,
rustications, deprivation of seniority, and refusal of college testimonials, so,
comparing this with the orders of 1622 and 1648 which I have quoted
above, perhaps we may take it that the use of the rod there had become
obsolete.

The above extracts are sufficient to show that corporal punishment was
recognized under the Elizabethan codes, though it seems probable that
public
214
opinion was against its use, unless the students were quite young;
perhaps this was always the practice, and thus, as the age of entry rose, the
use of the birch died out. Incepting bachelors and senior students were
usually punished for serious offences by deferring their admission to
degrees, loss of terms, or rustication: being adult, they were in effect
regarded as not subject to corporal punishment.
Stocks. Stangs. A couple of other physical punishments—ignominious
and sometimes painful—may be mentioned in passing.
One of these was confinement in Stocks. To this allusion has already been
made in the orders of 1572 and 1607. Another instance is to be found in the
records of Corpus Christi College, where about 1580, one of the students,
Tobias Bland, who had libelled the master, was compelled to confess his
fault publicly, next put in the stocks, and then expelled. In the old dining
hall of Trinity College there were stocks in the minstrel’s gallery, but there
is no evidence that they were re-erected when the hall was rebuilt in 1605;
perhaps the punishment was then becoming unusual, though against this
may be set the fact that there are references to the college stocks in 1610 at
King’s, in 1625 at Christ’s, and in 1642 at Emmanuel. The stocks at King’s
and Emmanuel, like those at Trinity, were in the hall. Allusions to their use
are
215
rare. The punishment continued to be inflicted after the restoration, for
on 10 April 1680, Thomas Grigson, who had been rude to the junior
proctor, Thomas Verdon of St John’s College, was ordered to be “sett fast in
the stocks, by the heeles for one whole houre, which was presently effected
by the Constable of Saint Bennett’s Parish in Cambridge.” He had partially
atoned for his offence by begging pardon on his knees, and so escaped a
worse punishment.
The Stang was a wooden pole on which the luckless culprit was tied, and
carried ignominiously through the courts of his college. In John Ray’s
Collection of English Words not Generally Used, London, 1674, it is said
that the “word is still used in some colleges in the University of Cambridge;
to stang scholars in Christmas, being to cause them to ride on a colt-staff or
pole for missing of chappel.” References to the place where the pole was
kept occur in the account-books of Trinity, St John’s, Queens’, and Christ’s.

In Parne’s unpublished manuscript history of Trinity College, allusion is
made to stanging as though at the beginning of the eighteenth century it had
become recently obsolete. From his language it would seem also that
undergraduates themselves inflicted the punishment on those of their
members who declined to take part in the Christmas revelries.
Fines.
216
Pecuniary fines have been used to enforce discipline from the
earliest times by the University as well as by the colleges: after the
renaissance, the increasing age and means of students made fines a suitable
penalty for many of the less serious offences, such as participation in
forbidden amusements, visits to places out of bounds, walking across the
grass in college courts, smoking in public places, the failure to wear
academic dress when required, non-attendance at lectures, chapel, hall, etc.
Probably grave misconduct was punished otherwise, or by fines combined
with additional penalties. A fine, if heavy, presses unequally on men of
different means; and thus a system of fines on a fixed scale cannot be
regarded as equitable. Fines are still used as penalties for the infraction of
rules.
Discommonsing. Dissizaring. To be put out of commons was a well-
recognized penalty, applicable chiefly to scholars and sizars, part of whose
emolument consisted of a right to dine in hall and, in some cases, to have
commons (bread, butter, and beer) to a limited amount each day. To deprive
such a student of the right to dine in hall or of his commons was equivalent
to a pecuniary fine, and in the case of a poor scholar might be a severe,
though not a satisfactory, punishment; probably a modicum of bread and
beer was supplied to students even when discommonsed. In some
comments,
217
published in 1768, on university education at Cambridge,
discommonsing is described as “one of the most idle and anile punishments
... inflicted rather on the parent than on the young man, who being
prohibited to eat in Hall is driven to purchase a dinner at a tavern or coffee
house.”
Here is an example of an order of discommonsing at Trinity in the
seventeenth century: “Agreed that Cassill should be punisht a monthes
commons.... Agreed at the same time that Pepys besides a monthes
commons, should have an admonition and pay the charges of the chirurgion
for the healinge Cassil’s head wh he broke with a key.” (Conclusion,

1 August 1643.) Its preservation is due to the fact that Pepys’ punishment
was combined with an admonition, and evidence that an admonition had
been given might be required if subsequently a question of expulsion arose.
The culprit in question was Thomas Pepys (B.A. 1645) and not the Samuel
of immortal memory.
In 1815, Mansel, master of Trinity and bishop of Bristol, was accustomed to
put men out of sizings and commons if they appeared in hall in trousers
instead of knee breeches, and it would seem then that to be put out of
sizings further deprived the student of obtaining private supplies from the
college kitchens. Half a century ago the penalty was still in use at Trinity,
being
218
imposed on scholars in waiting, who failed to appear after hall to say
grace.
Loss of Days. To qualify for a degree and for an emolument, it is and
has been generally necessary to keep a certain number of days by residence
in each of certain specified terms. At one time a common form of
punishment was to cancel a certain number of days already kept. Thus the
student would be obliged to stay at Cambridge for so many additional days
to make up for the requisite number which had to be kept in the course of
that term. In the seventeenth century the authorities went further and
sometimes cancelled terms that had been kept. I believe this form of
punishment has long been obsolete.
Gating. Walling. Continuous confinement within the walls of the college
(walling) or confinement during certain hours (gating) was another form of
punishment. A case of walling occurred at one of the smaller colleges in
Cambridge in 1872, but I know of no more recent instance. Gating is still in
force. It causes some social inconvenience. As far as it goes, it promotes
regular hours and economy, and it has no indirect ill-effects. Accordingly it
serves well to mark dissatisfaction and act as a warning.
Here is an old-time example from the records of Trinity, 19 July 1652, of
the
219
infliction of this and other penalties interesting from the name of the
scholar on whom it was inflicted:
Agreed that Dryden be put out of commons for a fortnight at least, and that he goe not out of the
colledg during the time aforesaid, excepting to sermons, without express leave of the master or
vice-master; and that at the end of the fortnight he read a confession of his crime, in the hall, at
the dinner time; at the three fellowes tables.

His offence was disobedience to the vice-master, and his contumacy in
submitting himself to discipline.
Impositions. Another tolerably obvious punishment was the setting of
impositions. The imposition might be the learning of lines by heart or the
delivery of a declamation on some given subject, or the production in
writing of so many lines of a classical work or of an analysis of some book.
Impositions in writing were constantly done vicariously, and if so, the
punishment was little more than a fine: apparently this abuse of the practice
was well known.
The tasks set were very heavy. In the Gradus, 1803, the learning by heart of
the first book of the Iliad is mentioned as a possible, though very severe
imposition. Similarly, according to J. M. F. Wright, a thousand lines of
Homer would have been regarded in 1815 as an unusually sharp
punishment, but such as might have been given in lieu of rustication. Other
impositions
220
mentioned are the learning by heart of a satire of Juvenal, and
the production of an analysis of Butler’s Analogy.
At Trinity the deans were provided with long sheets of paper on which were
printed in double columns forms such as the following:
... to transcribe ... lines of Virgil’s Aeneid, beginning at line ... book ..., and to deliver it to the
Junior Dean after morning Chapel on Tuesday.
... to transcribe ... lines of Homer’s Iliad, beginning at line ... book ..., and to deliver it to the
Senior Dean after Morning Chapel on Thursday.
... to repeat ... lines of ... by order of the Junior (or Senior) Dean.

These were filled up by the deans, cut off, and distributed by the chapel-
clerk to the men concerned. Customarily in Trinity the senior dean gave
impositions from the Iliad to be delivered on a Thursday, an the junior dean
from the Aeneid to be delivered on a Tuesday. Forms for putting men out of
commons, and admonishing them were printed in the same way on sheets,
to be used as occasions arose.
Impositions were set at Trinity as late as 1830, but I believe the custom had
died out before 1840, though I am told it was still used in certain
Cambridge colleges as late as 1855. At Oxford the practice continued rather
later and indeed at a few colleges seems to have been in force till near the

close
221
of the nineteenth century, for Rashdall, writing in 1895, speaks of the
practice as having been in force there until recently.
A century ago there seems to have been a sort of recognized scale of
penalties for cutting lectures or chapel. First, a reprimand was given at an
interview or sent in writing by a servant; second, an imposition was set;
third the offender was deprived of commons and sizings. If these steps were
ineffective, the matter might be regarded as a serious offence against
college discipline, and lead to “hauling” by the tutor, a gating, an interview
with the master, a formal admonition, and in extreme cases to rustication.
The theory of these petty punishments was set out by Whewell in his
Principles of English University Education, 1837. A punishment, according
to him, was to be regarded as the visible expression of college
dissatisfaction with certain conduct: as an infliction it might be slight, but it
emphasized the discontent expressed, and acted as a definite warning. He
suggested a most severe scale; namely, for the first offence, forfeiture of
one month’s commons; for the second, of three months’ commons; and for
the third, expulsion; but there is no reason to think that this was ever the
practice.
Confessions. A public confession was another form of punishment once
used:
222
I believe that this ceased to be employed by the middle of the
eighteenth century.
Statutory Admonitions. Rustication. Expulsion. For the graver offences,
a statutory admonition, rustication (temporary removal from the college), or
expulsion were reserved.
A formal admonition was intended to act as a serious warning, and it served
as a statutory prelude to expulsion. For this reason it was usually recorded,
and in former times an additional sting was added by compelling the culprit
to make also a public or written confession of his fault. Admonitions are not
very common in the records of Trinity: some thirty or forty occur in the
sixteenth and seventeenth century, only a few in the eighteenth century, and
they are rare in the nineteenth century save for a few relating to irregularity
of attendances at chapel or lectures. The last admonition at Trinity was
given in 1881, shortly before the new statutes of 1882 became operative.
Here are typical instances of the record of admonitions.

Whereas heretofore I have received an admonition from the Master of the College for my lewd
and outrageous behaviour within the same, and have since that time for like rioting and
swaggering in the Town received another admonition from him before the Vice-Master of the
College and my Tutor and also therewith all public correction, if these admonitions together
with due punishment do not work reformation in me hereafter, I do likewise willingly
223
acknowledge that I am incorrigible and worthy for the next like offence to be expelled the
College. Galen Browne. Circ. 1601. [Browne was elected to a scholarship in 1602, and
graduated B.A. and M.A. in due course, so presumably he amended his ways.]
Whereas I have very unadvisedly and rashly stricken one Mr Halfhead, a College servant, to the
shedding of blood, I do acknowledge myself to have received an admonition for that fault
tending to expulsion. Thomas Shirley, 22 February, 1621. [Halfhead was the manciple. Shirley
was a fellow and master of arts, so the offence was the more serious, but perhaps the
provocation was great. Shirley was subsequently junior bursar and tutor.]
I, Christopher Offley, do confess that often time and many ways I have offended against the
Statute de Modestia Morum to the displeasure of God, hurt to myself, the evil example of others,
and discredit of the College, and also have broken mine oath taken when I was preferred scholar
in unreverent behaviour towards some of the fellows and specially in giving scandalous and
contumelious speeches to Mr Hitch, being the Minister and Fellow of this College for which
misdemeanors and undutiful carriage I am unfainedly sorry and heartily desire forgiveness both
of God, and him, or any other whom I have offended, and confess I have received a just
admonition of the Master and Seniors by setting my date to this writing. Circ. 1622. [Offley
graduated B.A., 1624, and M.A., 1627, so presumably he amended his ways.]
Whereas we whose names are underwritten, on the fourth of April last, were guilty of grave
irregularity and misbehaviour by insulting the Vice-Master, the Dean, and other officers of the
College and thereby gave just offence to the Society, we do profess ourselves heartily sorry for
the same and acknowledge the lenity of the Master and Dean in suffering us to return so soon
224
from rustication. And we do hereby engage to be strictly observant of our duty for the future and
take this as our first admonition in order to expulsion. James Bensley, John Ambler. 29 May,
1754. [Bensley graduated in due course and was elected to a fellowship: Ambler did not
graduate.]
Ordered that ..., for irregular attendance at lectures and neglect of impositions, be admonished a
second time previous to rustication or expulsion. 29 May, 1844.

Temporary or permanent removal from the College were penalties reserved
for the gravest offences. They are still recognized as possible punishments.
The fact that there are but few records of the infliction of these extreme
penalties indicates how easily discipline has always been maintained.
My readers may well think that the results of these notes are somewhat
scanty, but if that nation is happy which has no history, surely universities
and colleges are to be congratulated whose records of punishment are so
few. To sum up the matter, the general effect left on my mind is that most of
the common offences were due only to youthful exuberance of spirits and
not to deliberate mischief making; and that the rules and sanctions, judged

by the standard of their time, have been neither harsh nor unreasonable, and
have usually been approved by public opinion in the University.

225
CHAPTER XIII.
NEWTON’S PRINCIPIA.

ewton’s Principia is one of the few scientific books which has sensibly

n affected the methods of scientific research and the ideas of men about
the universe. It is on this aspect of the subject I propose, in this paper, to
make a few remarks. The work itself is a classic in the history of
mathematics: the exposition of the subject, the enunciation of the principle
of prime and ultimate ratios, the creation of mechanics as a science resting
on experiments, and the theory of universal gravitation with concrete
applications to the solar system, make it a masterpiece. Here I avoid all
technicalities, and confine myself to a general description of its genesis and
contents and the reason why its publication affected scientific thought and
methods.
Newton’s exposition arose from an investigation of the cause of the motion
of the planets round the sun, and this in due course led to the enunciation
and establishment of the Newtonian theory of attraction. The origin of this
theory has been often told, but will bear repetition. The fundamental idea
occurred to Newton in 1665 or 1666, shortly after he had taken his degree at
Cambridge,
226
when, as he wrote later, “I was in the prime, of my age for
invention, and minded Mathematicks and Philosophy more than at any time
since.” His reasoning was as follows. He knew that gravity extended to the
highest hills, he saw no reason why it should cease to act at greater heights,
accordingly he believed that it would be found in operation as far as the
moon, and he suspected that it might be the force which retained that body
in its path round the earth.

This hypothesis he verified thus. If a stone is allowed to fall near the surface
of the earth, the attraction of the earth causes it to move through sixteen feet
in one second: also Kepler’s Laws, if accurate and applicable, involve the
conclusion that the attraction of the earth on a distant body varies inversely
as the square of its distance from the earth. Now the radius of the earth and
the distance of the moon were known to Newton, and therefore, on this
hypothesis, he could find the magnitude of the earth’s attraction on the
moon. Further, assuming that the moon moved in a circle, he could
calculate the force required to retain it in its orbit. At this time his estimate
of the radius of the earth was inaccurate, and, when he made the
calculation, he found that this force was rather greater than the earth’s
attraction on the moon. The discrepancy did not shake his faith in his
theory,
227
but he conjectured that the moon’s motion was also affected by
other influences, such for example, as the effect of a resisting medium
which might itself be in motion as supposed by Descartes in his
hypothetical vortices.
In 1679 Newton knew with approximate correctness the value of the radius
of the earth. He repeated his calculations, and found the results to be in
accordance with his former hypothesis. He then proceeded to the general
theory of the motion of a particle under a force directed to a fixed point, and
showed that the vector to the particle would sweep over equal areas in equal
times. He also proved that, if a particle describes an ellipse under a force
directed to a focus, the law must be that of the inverse square of the
distance from the focus, and conversely, that the orbit of a particle projected
in free space under the influence of such a force must be a conic. The
application to the solar system was obvious, since Kepler had shown that
the planets describe ellipses with the sun in one focus, and that the vectors
from the sun to them sweep over equal areas in equal times. This
investigation was made for his own satisfaction and was not published at
the time. In it he treated the solar bodies as if they were particles, and he
must have realized that the results could be taken as being only
approximately correct.
In
228
1684 the subject of the planetary orbits was discussed in London by
Halley, Hooke, and Wren. They were aware that, if Kepler’s conclusions
were correct, the attraction of the sun or earth on a distant external particle
must vary inversely as the square of the distance, but they could not

determine the orbit of a particle subjected to the action of a central force of
this kind. It was suggested that Newton might be able to assist them.
Accordingly in August, Halley went to Cambridge for a talk on the subject,
and then found that Newton had solved the problem some five years
previously, and that the path was necessarily a conic. At Halley’s request
Newton wrote out the substance of his argument, and sent it to London.
Halley at once realized the importance of the communication, and later in
the autumn returned to Cambridge to urge Newton to prosecute the theory
further. He found that Newton had already done something in the matter,
the results being contained in a manuscript which he saw. Probably this
reference is to the holograph manuscript, still preserved in the University
Library at Cambridge, of Newton’s lectures in the Michaelmas Term, which
served as the basis of his memoir sent to the Royal Society a few months
later. The great value of these investigations was recognized, and Newton
was persuaded to attack the more general problem. His results are given in
the Principia.
As
229
yet Newton had dealt with the problem as if the sun and the planets
might be regarded as heavy masses concentrated at their centres. Clearly at
the best this was only an approximation, though considering the enormous
distances involved it was not unreasonable. In January or February, 1685,
he considered the question of the attraction of bodies of finite size, and
found, to his surprise and gratification, that a sphere or spherical shell
attracts an external particle as if condensed into a heavy mass at its centre.
Hence the results he had already proved for the relative motion of particles
were true for the solar system, save for small errors due partly to the fact
that the bodies were not perfectly spherical and partly to disturbances
caused by the planets attracting one another. It was no longer a question of
rough approximation: the problem was reducible to mathematical analysis,
subject to the introduction of minute corrections, which, given the
necessary observations, could be calculated very closely. This was a new
discovery of first-rate importance, and initiated the modern theory of
attractions.
The first book of the Principia was finished before the summer of 1685. It
deals with the motion of particles or bodies in free space either in known
orbits or under the action of known forces. In it the law of attraction is

generalized
230
into the statement that every particle of matter attracts every
other particle with a force which varies directly as the product of their
masses and inversely as the square of the distance between them. Thus
gravitation was brought into the domain of Science.
The second book was completed by the summer of 1686. It treats of motion
in a resisting medium and of various problems connected with waves. At
the end of it, it is shown that the Cartesian theory of vortices is inconsistent
with the laws of motion, and necessarily leads to incorrect results. This
book opened another world to the application of mathematics and, in effect,
created the science of hydrodynamics.
The third book was finished in March 1687. In this, the theorems previously
established are applied to the chief phenomena of the universe, and briefly
we may say that all the facts then known about the solar system and, in
particular, the motion of the moon with its various inequalities, the figure of
the earth, and the phenomena of the tides, were shown to be in accord with
the theory. Much of the material for these calculations was collected by
Flamsteed and Halley.
The Principia, as I have said, is a classic. Like other books to which that
compliment
231
is paid, it is rarely read: indeed, I doubt whether there are a
dozen men in Cambridge who have glanced all through it, even in a cursory
manner. When I was an undergraduate the course for the Tripos involved
five sections (1, 2, 3, 9, and 11) of the first book, but now, probably with
good reason, even this slight acquaintance with the work is no longer
required, and to-day the character of these investigations is unfamiliar to
most mathematicians, while the fact that it is written in Latin tends to
diminish the number of its readers. I will, then, with your permission,
describe briefly its frame-work.
First, however, let me remark on how different was the knowledge of
mathematics, even among experts, at the time it was written from that
current to-day. In the geometry of the circle and conics mathematicians
were familiar with the methods of Greek science, and in their application
Newton was unrivalled among his contemporaries, but outside geometry
methods of investigation were far to seek. Analysis had been but little
developed; algebraic notation had only recently taken definite form;

trigonometry was still used mainly as an adjunct to astronomy; analytical
geometry had been invented by Descartes, but no text-books on it of
modern type were available; while nothing about the calculus had been
published. Mechanics, however, had recently been treated as a science—
statics
232
by Stevinus and dynamics by Galileo—and this paved the way for
Newton’s investigations. In particular, Galileo had established principles
which foreshadowed the first two laws of motion, and had deduced
formulae in linear motion like v² = 2fs, s = ½ft², and in circular motion
like f = v² / r.
Newton prefaced the Principia by explaining that the earliest problems in
natural philosophy which attract attention are connected with the
phenomena of motion, and it was with motion). that the book dealt. To
discuss motion effectively, it was necessary to give precision to the
language used, and accordingly he propounded definitions of mass,
momentum, inertia, and so on, which have settled the language of the
subject. He next enunciated his three well-known laws of motion, and
described the experiments on which he based them. He followed this up by
deducing rules for the composition and resolution of forces, and discussed
relative motion.
This preliminary matter is followed by the first book, concerned with the
motion of bodies in an unresisting medium. It is divided into fourteen
sections containing ninety-eight propositions with various interpolated
lemmas, corollaries, and scholia.
The first section is on the method of prime and ultimate ratios, by the use of
which Newton was able, in effect, to integrate. He applied this to the
curvature
233
and the areas of curves, and proved that, at the very beginning of
the motion of a body from rest under any force, the space described is
proportional to the force and the square of the time.
The second section is concerned with the motion of a particle under a
central force. It contains the well-known propositions that if the force is
central the area swept out by the vector to the centre is proportional to the
time, and conversely that if such area is proportional to the time the particle
is acted on by a central force. Newton further discussed particular cases of
circular, elliptic, and spiral motion. In the third section he dealt with motion

in a conic under a central force to the focus, showed that in this case the
force must vary inversely as the square of the distance, and conversely that
if a particle be projected from any point in any direction with any velocity
under such a force it must describe a conic about the centre of force as a
focus, and that in such elliptic orbits the periodic times are in the
sesquiplicate ratio of the major axes of the ellipses. He also explained how
to treat the problem if disturbing forces are introduced. These two sections
solved the problem of planetary motion if the planets could be treated as
particles and did not disturb one another’s motions.
The fourth and fifth sections are given up to the proof of certain geometrical
propositions
234
in conics required for subsequent discussions: in particular the
construction of a conic when a focus and three other conditions or when
five points on it or five tangents to it are given.
In the sixth section Newton returned to the problem of the motion of a
particle in an ellipse under a central force to a focus, and discussed how to
determine the position of the particle at any given time. (Kepler’s Problem.)
The seventh and eighth sections are devoted to the motion of a particle
under a central force which is any function of the distance. The geometrical
treatment of these problems is ingenious, but necessarily more involved
than when modern analysis is used.
In the ninth section Newton dealt with the motion of particles in orbits
which are revolving about the centre of force, and on the motion of the
apses of such orbits: this introduced the theory of disturbing forces. The
tenth section is concerned with constrained motion, and particularly with
the motion of pendulums. The eleventh section deals with the motion of
particles under their mutual attractions and incidentally with the problem of
three bodies. These three sections afford a notable illustration of Newton’s
analytical powers.
The twelfth and thirteenth sections deal with the attraction under various
laws
235
of force of spherical bodies, circular laminae, and solids of revolution.
These sections brought the problem of the solar system, consisting of solid
bodies of finite size and approximately spherical in form, into the domain of
mathematics, and led up to the generalization that all particles of matter
attract one another with a force proportional to the product of their masses

and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, from
which law it would seem that all the known phenomena of the motions of
the solar system can be deduced.
The fourteenth section is concerned with the motion of minute corpuscles,
with applications to the corpuscular theory of light.
The second book is devoted to the discussion of the motion of bodies in
resisting mediums: there are fifty-three propositions besides lemmas,
scholia, etc.
In the first section, Newton considered the motion of a particle or sphere
moving in a medium whose resistance varies as the velocity of the particle:
in the second section the resistance is assumed to vary as the square of the
velocity: and in the third section the resistance is supposed to consist of two
terms, one varying as the velocity and the other as the square of the
velocity. The fourth section is on spiral motion caused by resistance of the
medium.
The fifth section deals with the density and pressure of liquids and gases at
rest (Hydrostatics).
The
236
sixth section treats of the motion of pendulums in a resisting medium;
and the seventh section is concerned with the motion of fluids, and the
resistance they offer to the motion of projectiles. The latter section contains
the celebrated statement of the form of the solid of least resistance, whose
demonstration proved a puzzle to mathematicians until the invention of the
calculus of variations. Newton’s solution is in the Portsmouth papers, and
elsewhere I have published it: it involves the use of fluxions, and it is
probable that it was his failure to translate this demonstration into
geometrical language that led him to give the result without a proof.
The eighth section deals with the motion of waves with applications to the
theory of sound and the undulatory theory of light; and the ninth section
deals with vortices; it is here shown that the theory of vortices suggested by
Descartes to explain the motion of the solar system is untenable.
This book created the theory of hydrodynamics. Much of it is incomplete,
but it is astonishing that Newton proved as much as he did; of course to-day

no one would suggest that the best way of attacking these problems is by
Newtonian geometrical methods.
The third book contains the practical application of the propositions in the
two earlier books to the solar system. I need not describe this in detail. In
order
237
to justify this application, Newton commenced by laying down four
rules which have since been accepted as binding in scientific investigations.
These, as given in the third edition, are to the following effect: (1) We are
not to assume more causes than are sufficient and necessary for the
explanation of observed facts. (2) Hence, as far as possible, similar effects
must be assigned to the same cause; for instance, the fall of stones in
Europe and America. (3) Properties common to all bodies within reach of
our experiments are to be assumed as pertaining to all bodies; for instance,
extension. (4) Propositions in science obtained by a wide induction are to be
regarded as exactly or approximately true, until phenomena or experiments
show that they may be corrected or are liable to exceptions. The substance
of these rules is now accepted as the basis of scientific investigation. Their
formal enunciation here serves as a landmark in the history of thought.
As soon as the Copernican view of the solar system was accepted, it was
natural for men to seek to explain the reason why the planets moved as they
did. Descartes, in 1644, had suggested that the explanation might be found
in the existence of vortices in space. This conjecture, although based on
arbitrary assumptions, and in fact untenable, played an important part in the
history of the subject, for it accustomed men to think that planetary
phenomena
238
might be explicable by the same laws as are found to be true on
the earth. That this was so was established by Newton in his Principia,
where all the motions of the solar system were made to depend on one
assumption as to the law of attraction. The question whether this law could
itself be deduced from some more fundamental assumption was raised by
Newton, but he could not devise a satisfactory hypothesis. It has been
discussed again and again since his time, and the problem is still unsolved.
Newton’s conclusions were immediately accepted in Britain, and very
rapidly by the leading mathematicians in Europe: indeed Huygens came
expressly from Holland in order to make the personal acquaintance of a
writer whose work promised to revolutionize the history of science. The
refutation of the Cartesian hypothesis ran, however, counter to the

sentiments and wishes of a certain number of philosophers, and some few
years elapsed before the truth of the gravitation theory was universally
admitted, but it would be ungracious to dwell further on this. In Britain the
work exercised a profound influence in philosophy as well as in science,
and educated men of all schools of thought acquainted themselves with the
general line of Newton’s reasoning and his deductions.
That men of science and philosophers should have approved Newton’s
theory
239
is not surprising, but it is somewhat curious that it excited so little
opposition among theologians. Galileo’s discoveries of hills, vales, and
(supposed) seas on the moon and planets had already suggested that life
might exist there, and in the popular (but illogical) view this involved the
idea of the existence of beings with spiritual and intellectual faculties not
unlike those of men. Newton’s results seemed to show that there was
nothing in the nature of things to differentiate the earth from the other
planets, and therefore considerably strengthened the view that life might be
found on them. It might well be asked whether such life, and indeed
whether the mechanism of the solar system as expounded by Newton, was
in accordance with Scripture. That these difficulties were not pressed
against Newton’s conclusions is, I think, attributable to the fact that his
theory was explicitly concerned only with non-organic matter. His own
opinion was that the extension of the reign of law was an additional
argument in favour of a divine creation: this view, set out at the end of the
Principia and in his five letters to Bentley in 1692–93, was generally
accepted by the leaders of religious thought in Britain.
Lagrange more than once remarked that Newton was not only the greatest
mathematician of former days, but the most fortunate, since, as there is but
one
240
universe, it can happen to but one man in the world’s history to be the
interpreter of its laws. It is true that Newton applied his theory only to the
solar system for which alone he had the necessary data, but after the
publication of the Principia, no one doubted that gravity extended to the
most distant regions of space. The work of Sir William Herschel and that of
all later astronomers on binary and other systems rests on this hypothesis.
The influence of the Principia on dynamical astronomy has been
permanent. It is not too much to say that when it was published, the theory,
as there set out, had outstripped observation, but during the succeeding

century large numbers of new facts were collected, and applications of the
theory to new problems were made, notably by Clairaut, Euler, and
Lagrange. All these researches tended to confirm it.
The demonstrations in the Principia are expressed in the language of
classical geometry, and, though unnecessarily concise and difficult, their
correctness is unimpeachable. That Newton could carry his calculations so
far with the limited mathematics then at his command is not the least
wonderful part of the performance, but it is the prerogative of genius to get
great results with but scanty equipment.
Newton’s methods, which even in the seventeenth century were archaic,
became
241
in time quite out of date. This reason, the growth of the subject, and
the development of analysis made it desirable to expound dynamical
astronomy afresh. Towards the end of the eighteenth century the task was
undertaken by Laplace in his Mécanique Céleste. This is far more than the
translation of the Principia into the language of modern analysis, for it
greatly extends the theory of some branches of the subject which had been
left incomplete by Newton, either on account of his not having the requisite
analysis at his command or because the necessary facts were not available.
Laplace acknowledged his debt to Newton, and expressed his deliberate
opinion that the Principia was pre-eminent over every previous production
of human genius—“so near the gods, man cannot nearer go.” A century
later a fresh exposition of the subject embodying the discoveries of the
nineteenth century was given by F. F. Tisserand in his Mécanique Céleste;
this presents the subject in its modern form.
Newton had applied his theory to the solar system as it existed, and had not
investigated its origin. We owe to Laplace the enunciation of a hypothesis
as to its evolution. According to this conjecture, the solar system originated
in a quantity of incandescent gas rotating round an axis through its centre of
mass. Laplace assumed that as this gas cooled, it would contract, and that
successive
242
rings would break off from its outer edge; these rings in their
turn would cool, and finally condense into the planets with their satellites;
while the sun represents the central core which would be left. Recent
investigations show that this cannot be taken as correct without numerous
modifications. Moreover every extension of our knowledge requires the
introduction of alterations in the hypothesis, and this clearly suggests that

the conjecture is untenable. It played, however, a useful part in its day, as
suggesting a common origin for all members of the system. Perhaps I ought
to add that a nebular origin had been previously outlined by Kant, who had
also suggested meteoric aggregations and tidal friction as agents concerned,
but these were little more than vague conjectures.
The Principia convinced its readers that the laws of mechanics, discovered
by experiment on the earth, were operative throughout the solar system. It
was reserved for the nineteenth century to extend the reign of law to other
celestial phenomena. Newton and his successors had proved that the law of
gravity extends through all parts of space where observations are possible.
That the sun, stars, and planets are constituted of similar materials was
generally believed; and this has now been confirmed by the use of the
spectroscope which has enabled us to calculate the temperature of gaseous
stars,
243
and specify the chemical elements comprised in them. Thus the
composition of far-distant suns has been reduced to problems to be settled
in our laboratories. The scientific world, however, in admitting the validity
of the theory of universal gravity had implicitly accepted the principle that
the reign of law, as investigated on the earth, extends throughout the
universe. Thus the daring which permits us, living on a medium-sized
planet attached to one of the smaller suns, to analyse the universe is, I
venture to say, the direct outcome of the genius of Newton as displayed in
his Principia.

244
CHAPTER XIV.
ISAAC NEWTON ON UNIVERSITY STUDIES.

33
mong the Portsmouth papers in the University Library at Cambridge is a
a memorandum by Isaac Newton, drawn up, I conjecture, towards the
close of the seventeenth century, on the organization of the studies and
on the discipline of the University.
Conditions then differed so widely from those now in force that the value of
the memorandum is only historical, but notwithstanding this, its interest is
considerable. I have no reason to suppose that it was formally brought
before the regent or the non-regent house, and possibly the plan never got
beyond discussion by a few friends. I have modernized the spelling, made
the use of capitals uniform, allowed myself to break paragraphs, and
sometimes inserted punctuation or altered it—otherwise the paper is as
originally written. I give it without further comment.

Newton’s Memorandum.

“Undergraduates to be instructed by a Tutor, a Humanity Lecturer, a Greek
Lecturer, a Philosophy Lecturer, and a Mathematic Lecturer.
“The
245
Tutor to read logic, ethics, the globes and principles of geography and
chronology in order to understand history, unless the Lecturers have time
for any of these things.
“The Humanity and Greek Lecturers to set tasks in Latin and Greek authors
once a day to the first year, and once a week to the rest; and to examine
diligently and instruct briefly; and to punish by exercises such faults as
concern lectures; and to appoint the reading of the best historians.

“The Philosophy Lecturer to read first of things introductory to natural
philosophy—time, space, body, place, motion and its laws, force,
mechanical powers, gravity and its laws, hydrostatics, projectiles solid and
fluid, circular motions and the forces relating to them. And then to read
natural philosophy, beginning with the general system of the world, and
thence proceeding to the particular constitution of this earth and the things
therein—meteors, elements, minerals, vegetables, animals, and ending with
anatomy if he have skill therein. Also to examine in logic and ethics.
“The Mathematic Lecturer to read first some easy and useful practical
things; then Euclid, spherics, the projections of the sphere, the construction
of maps, trigonometry, astronomy, optics, music, algebra, etc. Also to
examine and (if the Tutor be deficient) to instruct in the principles of
chronology and geography.
“Several
246
sciences which depend not on one another are all learnt in less
time together than successively, the mind being diverted and recreated by
the variety, and put more upon the stretch. And therefore divers of these
Lecturers may proceed together: suppose the Tutor’s [lectures] after
morning chapel, the Greek or Philosophy Lecturer’s two hours after, and the
Humanity and Mathematic [Lecturers’] in the afternoon. The Tutor to
accompany his pupils to the philosophy and mathematic lectures, and to
examine them the next morning both in those lectures and in his own, and
make them understand where they hesitate. These two Lecturers to read five
days in the week and with the other two [Lecturers] to examine the sixth.
Each Lecturer to read the same day successively to two or three years [i.e.,
to Freshmen, Junior Sophs, or Senior Sophs as the case may be] under
[their] several Tutors. Their lectures to begin with [the] Michaelmas Term
and continue till the Commencement [i.e. the end of the Easter Term]: the
Tutors to begin the Commencement before. The Greek and Humanity
Lecturers to set bigger tasks in the vacations than in the reading-time,
proportionally to the spare hours of the students.
“A Monitor to note those who miss lectures, and give their names to the
Humanity Lecturer, who shall punish them, not by pecuniary mulcts, but by
tasks
247
[, such as] by making verses, themes, epistles, or getting anything
without book. All pecuniary mulcts of Undergraduates to be abolished; and

exercises, admonitions, recantations, and expulsions (according to the
nature of the crime) to succeed in their room.
“In the Long Vacation, between the Commencement and Michaelmas, the
Tutor shall take care that his Pupils read over all the last year’s lessons
again by themselves, and at the end of the vacation they shall be examined
again, and those, who are at any time found not fit to go on, turned down to
the lectures of the year below, that they do not retard the Lecturer and be an
ill example to others.
“The Lecturers to be chosen every three years, and the elections after the
first institution to be on this manner. All those who have at any time been
Lecturers shall choose four out of their number, one for each office, and the
Master and Seniors of the College shall choose other four who have not yet
executed the office, and those eight with the Master shall, by balancing,
choose four out their number. [There shall be] no regard to seniority or
anything but merit. The Lecturers to choose yearly a Public Tutor, and to
reprehend or displace him if there be reason. This Tutor without a new
election to take none but those admitted in his year of office until their
course of lectures be gone through. No Private Tutor to take two years
together.
248
All sizars, poor scholars, and scholars of the House to be under
Public Tutors, except Westminster scholars of Trinity College when the
Tutor is of another school.
“For encouraging able and fit men to accept of the Readers’ places, their
fellowships during their office shall be doubled by the addition of four other
fellowships kept vacant for the purpose, one, for each, unless some other
competent provision be made for any of them. And because the Philosophy
and Mathematic Lecturers’ office is laborious, for encouraging them to
diligence none shall be compelled to come to their lectures, but all that will
be auditors shall offer each of them a quarterly gratuity; suppose of 10s. the
sizar, 12s. or 15s. the pensioner, and 20s. or 25s. the fellow-commoner. And
to encourage auditors those shall be preferred to scholarships and
fellowships which are best skilled in all sciences, caeteris paribus, and shall
have seniority of those that come not to lectures. This institution to begin in
the greater colleges, and be carried on in the rest as men qualified and
revenues can be had. In smaller colleges the Mathematic Lecturer may be
omitted, and only a power granted the College of instituting one when they

can. Also the Greek Lecturer’s office may be supplied by the Humanity
Lecturer when it shall be thought fit. A gratuity to be given by all the first
year to the Greek and Humanity Lecturers.
“For
249
securing the Tutor and making his office desirable by fit persons,
every student at his admission to deposit caution money in the hands of the
bursar of the College; suppose £10 or £12 the sizar, £16 or £20 the
pensioner, and £30 or £40 the fellow-commoner. And in case any pupil at
the end of any quarter be in his Tutor’s debt, and do not discharge it within
six weeks after his receipt of the quarter bill, the Bursar to discharge it, and
return back the residue upon demand, and the Tutor forthwith upon pain of
forfeiting his office, to send home the pupil. Yet may the pupil be received
again with a new supply of money. This institution to be universal. The
Master and Seniors to regulate the expenses of all under tuition by certain
limits common to them all, and the Senior Dean to read over and sign all
their quarter bills. Extravagant pupils, after one admonition, to be sent
away.
“Fellow-commoners to perform all exercises in their courses, and to be
equally subject to their Tutors and Governors with other scholars and alike
punishable by exercises, and those who are resty or idle to be sent away lest
they spoil others by their bad example. They shall read geography,
chronology, and mathematics the first year.
“All students who will be admitted to lectures in natural philosophy to learn
first geometry and mechanics. By mechanics I mean here the demonstrative
doctrine
250
of forces and motions, including hydrostatics. For without a
judgment in these things a man can have none in philosophy.
“Whenever the major part of the Mathematic Lecturers in the University
shall desire [it] a Master [shall be appointed] to teach fellow-commoners
and others arithmetic and designing. The University shall allow him £10
yearly out of their Common Chest, and he shall observe the orders of the
Mathematic Lecturers and be placed or displaced by the major part of them
at pleasure.
“All graduates without exception found by the Proctors in taverns or other
drinking houses, unless with travellers at their inns, shall at least have their

names given in to the Vice-Chancellor, who shall summon them to answer it
before the next Consistory.
“The Deans to visit the chambers of all undergraduates once at least every
week, upon pain of forfeiting 10s. to the Lecturers for every omission.
“Fasting nights have a shadow of religion without any substance. ’Tis only
supping more pleasantly out of the public hall. And this does great mischief
by sending young students to find suppers abroad, where they get into
company and grow debauched. Whether would it not be better to license
undergraduates to sup together in such places as the Dean shall appoint,
with a Monitor to note the names of the absent?
“All
251
these lectures to consist in extemporary explications of books in such
an easy, short, and clear manner as may be most profitable to the auditors.
And if any Lecturer or other person shall compose any treatise which shall
be preferred and used by the major part of the Mathematic or Philosophic
Lecturers, the University shall give the author either £20, or if those
Lecturers request it, £30, £40 or £50, out of their Common Chest.
“Commissioners to be appointed for some years to set on foot, inspect, and
amend the institution.
“No oaths of office to be imposed on the Lecturers. I do not know a greater
abuse of religion than that sort of oaths: they being harder to be kept than
the Jewish Law, so that yearly absolutions have been instituted. The papists,
who believe such absolutions, might be excused for instituting such oaths,
but we have no such doctrine, and yet continue their practices. Admonitions
and pecuniary mulcts for neglect of duty are less cruel punishments than the
consequence of perjury, and may be as effectual.”

33 Camb. Univ. Library, Newton MSS. section viii, No. 5. Add. 4005/6, A.

252
CHAPTER XV.
THE HISTORY OF THE MATHEMATICAL TRIPOS.

he Mathematical Tripos has played so prominent a part in the history of

t education at Cambridge and of mathematics in England, that a sketch of
34
its development may be interesting to general readers.
So far as mathematics is concerned the history of the University before
Newton may be summed up very briefly. The University was founded
towards the end of the twelfth century. Throughout the middle ages, the
instruction given to students was organized on lines similar to those current
at Paris and Oxford, and to qualify for a degree it was necessary to perform
various exercises, and especially to keep a number of acts or to oppose acts
kept
253
by other students. An act consisted in effect of a debate in Latin,
thrown, at any rate in later times, into syllogistic form. It was commenced
by one student, the respondent, stating some proposition, often propounded
in the form of a thesis, which was attacked by an opponent or opponents,
the discussion being controlled by a senior graduate. The teaching was
largely in the hands of young graduates—every master of arts being
compelled to reside and teach for at least one year—though no doubt
colleges and private hostels supplemented this instruction in the case of
their own students.
The reformation in England was largely the work of Cambridge divines,
and in the University the renaissance was warmly welcomed. In spite of the
disorder and confusion of the Tudor period, new studies and a system of
professional instruction were introduced. The earliest lectureships created
by the University seem to have been one in Latin established in or before
1492 and one in mathematics established in or before 1501: they mark the

beginning of the system of teaching by experts which has superseded the
medieval system of compulsory teaching by all regent masters. The fact that
one of these lectureships was in mathematics shows that as early as 1500
the subject was regarded as important. Tunstall, subsequently the most
eminent English arithmetician of his time, migrated in 1496 from Oxford to
Cambridge,
254
and most of the subsequent English mathematicians of the
Tudor period were at Cambridge; of these I may mention Record (who
migrated, probably about 1535, from Oxford), Dee, Digges, Blundeville,
Buckley, Billingsley, Hill, Bedwell, Hood, Richard and John Harvey,
Edward Wright, Briggs, and Oughtred. Under the Elizabethan statutes of
1570, notwithstanding many disadvantages, the mathematical school
continued to grow. Horrox, Seth Ward, Foster, Rooke, Gilbert Clerke, Pell,
Wallis, Barrow, Dacres, and Morland may be cited as prominent Cambridge
mathematicians of the succeeding century.
Newton’s mathematical career dates from 1665; his reputation, abilities, and
influence attracted general attention to the subject. He created a school of
mathematics and mathematical physics, among the earliest members of
which I note the names of Laughton, Samuel Clarke, Craig, Flamsteed,
Whiston, Saunderson, Jurin, Taylor, Cotes, and Robert Smith. Since then
Cambridge has been regarded as, in a special sense, the home of English
mathematicians, and from 1706 onwards we have fairly complete accounts
of the course of reading and work of mathematical students.
Until less than a century ago the form of the method of qualifying for a
degree
255
remained substantially unaltered, but the subject-matter of the
discussions varied from time to time with the prevalent studies of the place.
After the renaissance some of the statutable exercises were “huddled,” that
is, were reduced to a mere form. To huddle an act, the proctor generally
asked some question such as Quid est nomen? to which the answer usually
expected was Nescio. In these exercises considerable license was allowed,
particularly if there were any play on the words involved. For example,
J. Brass, of Trinity, was accosted with the question, Quid est aes? to which
he answered, Nescio nisi finis examinationis. It should be added that retorts
such as these were only allowed in the pretence exercises, and a candidate
who in the actual examination was asked to give a definition of happiness
and replied, “An exemption from Payne”—that being the name of his

questioner—was plucked for want of discrimination in time and place. In
earlier years even the farce of huddling seems to have been unnecessary, for
it was said in 1675 that it was not uncommon for the proctors to take
“cautions for the performance of the statutable exercises, and accept the
forfeit of the money so deposited in lieu of their performance.”
In medieval times acts had been usually kept on some scholastic question or
on
256
a proposition taken from the Sentences. About the end of the fifteenth
century religious questions, such as the interpretation of biblical texts,
began to be introduced. Some fifty or sixty years later the favourite subjects
were drawn either from dogmatic theology or from philosophy. In the
seventeenth century the questions were usually philosophical, but in the
eighteenth century, under the influence of the Newtonian school, a large
proportion of them were mathematical.
Further details about these exercises and specimens of acts kept in the
eighteenth century are given in my History of Mathematics at Cambridge.
Here I will only say that they provided an admirable training in the art of
presenting an argument, and in dialectical skill in attack and defence. The
mental strain involved in keeping a contested act was severe. De Morgan,
describing his act kept in 1826, wrote35:
I was badgered for two hours with arguments given and answered in Latin—or what we call
Latin—against Newton’s first section, Lagrange’s derived functions, and Locke on innate
principles. And though I took off everything, and was pronounced by the moderator to have
disputed magno honore, I never had such a strain of thought in my life. For the inferior
opponents were made as sharp as their betters by their tutors, who kept lists of queer objections
drawn from all quarters.

Had the language of the discussions been changed to English, as was
repeatedly
257
urged from 1774 onwards, these exercises might have been
retained with advantage, but the barbarous Latin and the syllogistic form in
which they were carried on prejudiced their retention.
About 1830 a custom arose for the respondent and opponents to meet
previously and arrange their arguments together. The discussions then
became an elaborate farce, and were a mere public performance of what had
been already rehearsed. Accordingly the moderators of 1839 took the
responsibility of abandoning them. This action was singularly high-handed,
since a report of 30 May 1838, had recommended that they should be

continued, and there was no reason why they should not have been
reformed and retained as a useful feature in the scheme of study.
On the result of the acts, a list of those qualified to receive degrees was
drawn up. This list was not arranged strictly in order of merit, because the
proctors could insert names anywhere in it, but by the beginning of the
eighteenth century this power had become restricted to the right reserved to
the vice-chancellor, the senior regent, and each proctor to place in the list
one candidate anywhere he liked—a right which continued to exist till
1828, though it was not exercised after 1792. Except for the names of these
“honorary optimes,” this final list was, until 1752, arranged in order of
merit
258
into wranglers and senior optimes, junior optimes, and poll-men; after
1752, the wranglers and senior optimes were placed in separate classes. The
bachelors on admission to their degrees took seniority according to their
order on this list. The title wrangler is derived from these contentious
discussions; the title optime from the customary compliment given by the
moderator to a successful disputant, Domine ..., optime disputasti, or even
optime quidem disputasti, and the title of poll-man from the description of
this class as οἱ πολλοί.
The final exercises for the bachelor of arts degree were never huddled, and
until 1839 were carried out strictly. University officials were responsible for
approving the subject-matter of these acts. Stupid men offered some
irrefutable truism, but the ambitious student courted reputation by affirming
some paradox. Probably all honour men kept acts, but poll-men were
deemed to comply with the regulations by keeping opponencies. The
proctors were responsible for presiding at these acts, or seeing that
competent graduates did so. In and after 1649 two examiners were specially
appointed for this purpose. In 168036 these examiners were appointed by
the senate with the title of moderator, and with the joint stipend of four
shillings for everyone graduating as a bachelor of arts during their year of
office.
259
In 1688 the joint stipend of the moderators was fixed at £40 a year.
The moderators, like the proctors, were nominated by the colleges in
rotation.
From the earliest times the proctors had the power of questioning a
candidate at the end of a disputation, and probably all candidates for a
degree attended the public schools on certain days to give an opportunity to

the proctors (or any master who liked to take part in the examination) to
examine them37, though the opportunity was not always used. Such
examinations were conducted in Latin, and originally different candidates
attended on different days. Soon after 171038 the moderators or proctors
began the custom of summoning on one day in January all candidates
whom they proposed to question, and conducting the examination in
English and in public: the examination did not last more than one day, and
was partly on philosophy and partly on mathematics. It was from this
examination that the Mathematical Tripos developed.
This introduction of a regular oral examination seems to have been mainly
due
260
to the fact that when, in 1710, George I gave the Ely library to the
University, it was decided to assign for its reception the old senate-house—
now the catalogue room in the library—and to build a new room for the
meetings of the senate. Pending the building of the new senate-house the
books were stored in the Schools, which thus were rendered unavailable for
keeping acts. In consequence of this, considerable difficulty was found in
arranging for all the candidates to keep the full number of statutable
exercises, and obtaining opportunities to compare them one with another:
hence the introduction or extension of a supplementary oral examination.
The advantages of this examination as providing a ready means of testing
the knowledge and abilities of the candidates were so patent that it was
retained when the necessity for some system of the kind had passed away,
and finally it became systematized into an organized test to which all
questionists were subjected.
In 1731 the University raised the joint stipend of the moderators to £60 “in
consideration of their additional trouble in the Lent Term.” This would
seem to indicate that the senate-house examination had then taken formal
shape, and perhaps that a definite scheme for its conduct had become
customary.
As long as the order of the list of those approved for degrees was settled on
the
261
result of impressions derived from acts kept by the different candidates
at different times and on different subjects, it was impossible to arrange the
men in strict order of merit, nor was much importance attached to the order.
But, with the introduction of an examination of all the candidates on one
day, much closer attention was paid to securing an accurate classification,

and more confidence felt in the published order. It seems to have been
consequent on this that in and after 1748 the final lists were regarded as
authoritative and important and that the names of the honorary optimes
were definitely indicated: the lists from this time appeared in the University
Calendars. The lists from 1748 to 1910, with the earlier Ordines
Senioritatis from 1499 to 1747, are printed in the Historical Register of the
University.
Of the detailed history of the examination until the middle of the eighteenth
century we know nothing. From 1750 onwards, however, we have more
definite accounts of it. At this time, it would seem that all the men from
each college were taken together as a class, and questions passed down by
the proctors or moderators till they were answered: but the examination
remained entirely oral, and technically was regarded as subsidiary to the
discussions which had been previously held in the schools.
Each class contained men of very different abilities, and to meet difficulties
thus
262
caused, a custom grew up by which every candidate was liable to be
taken aside to be questioned by any master of arts who wished to do so, and
this was regarded as an important part of the examination. The examination
now continued for two days and a half, the subjects, as before, being
mathematics and philosophy. At the conclusion of the second day the
moderators received the reports of those masters of arts who had voluntarily
taken part in the examination, and provisionally settled the final list. The
last half-day was used in revising and rearranging the order of merit.
Richard Cumberland has left an account of the tests to which he was
subjected when he took his bachelor degree in 1751. Clearly the
disputations still played an important part, and it is difficult to say what
weight was attached to the subsequent senate-house examination; his
reference to it is only of a general character. After saying that he kept two
acts and two opponencies he continued39:
The last time I was called upon to keep an act in the schools I sent in three questions to the
Moderator, which he withstood as being all mathematical, and required me to conform to the
usage of proposing one metaphysical question in the place of that, which I should think fit to
withdraw. This was ground I never liked to take, and I appealed against his requisition: the act
was accordingly put by till the matter of right should be ascertained by the statutes of the
university, and in the result of that enquiry it was given for me, and my question stood.... I
263
yielded now to advice, and paid attention to my health, till we were cited to the senate house to

be examined for our Bachelor’s degree. It was hardly ever my lot during that examination to
enjoy any respite. I seemed an object singled out as every man’s mark, and was kept perpetually
at the table under the process of question and answer.

It was found possible by means of the new examination to differentiate the
better men more accurately than before; and accordingly, in 1753, as above
stated, the first class was subdivided into two, called respectively wranglers
and senior optimes, a division which is still maintained.
The semi-official examination by masters of arts was regarded as the more
important part of the test, and the most eminent residents in the University
took part in it. Thus John Fenn, of Caius, 5th wrangler in 1761, wrote40:
On the following Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, we sat in the Senate-house for public
examination; during this time I was officially examined by the Proctors and Moderators, and
had the honour of being taken out for examination by Mr Abbot, the celebrated mathematical
tutor of St John’s College, by the eminent professor of mathematics Mr Waring, of Magdalene,
and by Mr Jebb of Peterhouse, a man thoroughly versed in the academical studies.

This irregular examination by any master who chose to take part in it
constantly gave rise to accusations of partiality.
In
264
1763 the traditional rules for the conduct of the examination took more
definite shape. Henceforth the examiners used the disputations only as a
means of classifying the men roughly. On the result of their “acts,” and
probably partly also of their general reputation, the candidates were divided
into eight classes, each arranged in alphabetical order. The subsequent
position of the men in the class was determined solely by the senate-house
examination. The first two classes comprised all who were expected to be
wranglers, the next four classes included the other candidates for honours,
and the last two classes consisted of poll-men only. Practically anyone
placed in either of the first two classes was allowed, if he wished, to take an
aegrotat senior optime, and thus escape all further examination: this was
called gulphing it.
All the men from one college were no longer taken together, but each class
was examined separately and vivâ voce; and hence, since all the students
comprised in each class were of about equal attainments, it was possible to
make the examination more effective. Richard Watson, of Trinity, claimed
that this change was made by him when acting as moderator in 1763. He
said41:

There was more room for partiality ... then [i.e. in 1759] than there is now; and I attribute the
265
change, in a great degree, to an alteration which I introduced the first year I was moderator [i.e.
in 1763], and which has been persevered in ever since. At the time of taking their Bachelor of
Arts’ degree, the young men are examined in classes, and the classes are now formed according
to the abilities shown by individuals in the schools. By this arrangement, persons of nearly equal
merits are examined in the presence of each other, and flagrant acts of partiality cannot take
place. Before I made this alteration, they were examined in classes, but the classes consisted of
members of the same College, and the best and worst were often examined together.

It is probable that before the examination in the senate-house began a
candidate, if manifestly placed in too low a class, was allowed the privilege
of challenging the class to which he was assigned. Perhaps this began as a
matter of favour, and was only granted in exceptional cases, but a few years
later it became a right which every candidate could exercise; and I think
that it is partly to its development that the ultimate predominance of the
tripos over the other exercises for the degree is due.
In the same year, 1763, it was decided that the relative position of the senior
and second wranglers, namely, Paley, of Christ’s, and Frere, of Caius, was
to be decided by the senate-house examination and not by the disputations.
Henceforward distinction in that examination was regarded as the most
important honour open to undergraduates.
In
266
1768 Robert Smith, of Trinity College, founded prizes for mathematics
and natural philosophy open to two commencing bachelors. The
examination followed immediately after the senate-house examination, and
the distinction, being much coveted, tended to emphasize the mathematical
side of the normal university education of the best men. Since 1883 the
prizes have been awarded on the result of dissertations42. Additional prizes,
awarded at the same time, and associated with the name of Lord Rayleigh43,
were founded in 1909.
Until about 1770, the senate-house examination had been oral, but it began
now to be the custom to dictate some or all of the questions and to require
answers to be written. Only one question was dictated at a time, and a fresh
one was not given out until some student had solved that previously read: a
custom which by causing perpetual interruptions to take down new
questions must have proved very harassing. We are perhaps apt to think that
an examination conducted by written papers is so natural that the custom is
of long continuance, but I know no record of any in Europe earlier than the

eighteenth century. Until 1830 the questions for the Smith’s prizes were
dictated.
The
267
following description of the senate-house examination as it existed in
1772 was given by Jebb44:
The moderators, some days before the arrival of the time prescribed by the vice-chancellor, meet
for the purpose of forming the students into divisions of six, eight, or ten, according to their
performance in the schools, with a view to the ensuing examination.
Upon the first of the appointed days, at eight o’clock in the morning, the students enter the
senate-house, preceded by a master of arts from each college, who ... is called the “father” of the
college....
After the proctors have called over the names, each of the moderators sends for a division of the
students: they sit with him round a table, with pens, ink, and paper, before them: he enters upon
his task of examination, and does not dismiss the set till the hour is expired. This examination
has now for some years been held in the English language.
The examination is varied according to the abilities of the students. The moderator generally
begins with proposing some questions from the six books of Euclid, plain (sic) trigonometry,
and the first rules of algebra. If any person fails in an answer, the question goes to the next.
From the elements of mathematics, a transition is made to the four branches of philosophy, viz.
mechanics, hydrostatics, apparent astronomy, and optics, as explained in the works of
Maclaurin, Cotes, Helsham, Hamilton, Rutherforth, Keill, Long, Ferguson, and Smith. If the
moderator finds the set of questionists, under examination, capable of answering him, he
proceeds to the eleventh and twelfth books of Euclid, conic sections, spherical trigonometry, the
higher parts of Algebra, and sir Isaac Newton’s Principia; more particularly those sections,
which treat of the motion of bodies in eccentric and revolving orbits; the mutual action of
268
spheres, composed of particles attracting each other according to various laws; the theory of
pulses, propagated through elastic mediums; and the stupendous fabric of the world. Having
closed the philosophical examination, he sometimes asks a few questions in Locke’s Essay on
the human understanding, Butler’s Analogy, or Clarke’s Attributes. But as the highest
academical distinctions are invariably given to the best proficients in mathematics and natural
philosophy, a very superficial knowledge in morality and metaphysics will suffice.
When the division under examination is one of the highest classes, problems are also proposed,
with which the student retires to a distant part of the senate-house, and returns, with his solution
upon paper, to the moderator, who, at his leisure, compares it with the solutions of other
students, to whom the same problems have been proposed.
The extraction of roots, the arithmetic of surds, the invention of divisers, the resolution of
quadratic, cubic, and biquadratic equations; together with the doctrine of fluxions, and its
application to the solution of questions “de maximis et minimis,” to the finding of areas, to the
rectification of curves, the investigation of the centers of gravity and oscillation, and to the
circumstances of bodies, agitated, according to various laws, by centripetal forces, as unfolded,
and exemplified, in the fluxional treatises of Lyons, Saunderson, Simpson, Emerson, Maclaurin,
and Newton, generally form the subject matter of these problems.
When the clock strikes nine, the questionists are dismissed to breakfast: they return at half-past
nine, and stay till eleven; they go in again at half-past one, and stay till three; and, lastly, they

return at half-past three, and stay till five.
The hours of attendance are the same upon the subsequent day.
269

On the third day they are finally dismissed at eleven.
During the hours of attendance, every division is twice examined in form, once by each of the
moderators, who are engaged for the whole time in this employment.
As the questionists are examined in divisions of only six or eight at a time, but a small portion
of the whole number is engaged, at any particular hour, with the moderators; and, therefore, if
there were no further examination, much time would remain unemployed.
But the moderator’s inquiry into the merits of the candidates forms the least material part of the
examination.
The “fathers” of the respective colleges, zealous for the credit of the societies, of which they are
the guardians, are incessantly employed in examining those students, who appear most likely to
contest the palm of glory with their sons.
This part of the process is as follows:
The father of a college takes a student of a different college aside, and, sometimes for an hour
and an half together, strictly examines him in every part of mathematics and philosophy, which
he professes to have read.
After he hath, from this examination, formed an accurate idea of the student’s abilities and
acquired knowledge, he makes a report of his absolute or comparative merit to the moderators,
and to every other father who shall ask him the question.
Besides the fathers, all masters of arts, and doctors, of whatever faculty they be, have the liberty
of examining whom they please; and they also report the event of each trial, to every person
who shall make the inquiry.
The moderators and fathers meet at breakfast, and at dinner. From the variety of reports, taken in
connection with their own examination, the former are enabled, about the close of the second
270
day, so far to settle the comparative merits of the candidates, as to agree upon the names of four-
and-twenty, who to them appear most deserving of being distinguished by marks of academical
approbation.
These four-and-twenty [wranglers and senior optimes] are recommended to the proctors for their
private examination; and, if approved by them, and no reason appears against such placing of
them from any subsequent inquiry, their names are set down in two divisions, according to that
order, in which they deserve to stand; are afterwards printed; and read over upon a solemn day,
in the presence of the vice-chancellor, and of the assembled university.
The names of the twelve [junior optimes], who, in the course of the examination, appear next in
desert, are also printed, and are read over, in the presence of the vice-chancellor, and of the
assembled university, upon a day subsequent to the former....
The students, who appear to have merited neither praise nor censure [the poll-men], pass
unnoticed: while those, who have taken no pains to prepare themselves for the examination, and
have appeared with discredit in the schools, are distinguished by particular tokens of disgrace.

Jebb’s statement about the number of wranglers and senior optimes is only
approximate.
It may be added that it was now frankly recognized that the examination
was competitive45. Also that though it was open to any member of the
senate to take part in it, yet the determination of the relative merit of the
271
students was entirely in the hands of the moderators46. Although the
examination did not occupy more than three days it must have been a severe
physical trial to anyone who was delicate. It was held in winter and in the
senate-house: that building was then noted for its draughts, and was not
warmed in any way; and, according to tradition, on one occasion the
candidates on entering in the morning found the ink frozen in the pots on
their desks.

The University was not altogether satisfied47 with the regulations, and in
177948 the scheme of examination was amended in various respects. In
particular the examination was extended to four days, a third day being
given up entirely to natural religion, moral philosophy, and Locke’s Essay.
It was further announced49 that a candidate would not receive credit for
advanced subjects unless he had satisfied the examiners in Euclid’s
Elements and elementary natural philosophy.
A system of brackets or “classes quam minimae” was now introduced.
Under this system the examiners issued on the morning of the fourth day a
provisional list of men who had obtained honours, with the names of those
of
272
about equal merit bracketed, and that day was devoted to arranging the
names in each bracket in order of merit: the examiners being given explicit
authority to invite the assistance of others in this work. Whether at this time
a candidate could request to be re-examined with the view of being moved
from one bracket to another is uncertain, but later this also was allowed.
The number of examiners was also increased to four, the moderators of one
year becoming, as a matter of course, the examiners of the next. Thus of the
four examiners in each year, two had taken part in the examination of the
previous year, and the continuity of the system of examination was
maintained. The names of the moderators appear on the tripos lists, but the
names of the examiners were not printed on the lists till some years later.

The right of any master of arts to take part in the examination was not
affected, though henceforth it was exercised more sparingly, and I believe
was not insisted on after 1785. But it became a regular custom for the
moderators to invite particular residents to examine and compare specified
candidates: Milner, of Queens’, was constantly asked to assist in this way.
It was not long before it became an established custom that a candidate,
who was dissatisfied with the class in which he had been placed as the
result
273
of his disputations, might challenge it before the examination began.
This power seems to have been used but rarely; it was, however, a
recognition of the fact that a place in the tripos list was to be determined by
the senate-house examination alone, and the examiners soon acquired the
habit of settling the preliminary classes without exclusive reference to the
previous disputations.
The earliest extant paper actually set in the senate-house, to which we can
with certainty refer, is a problem paper set in 1785 or 1786 by W. Hodson,
of Trinity, then a proctor. The autograph copy from which he gave out the
questions was luckily preserved, and is in the library50 of Trinity College. It
must be almost the last problem paper which was dictated, instead of being
printed and given as a whole to the candidates. The paper is as follows:
1. To determine the velocity with which a Body must be thrown, in a direction parallel to the
Horizon, so as to become a secondary planet to the Earth; as also to describe a parabola, and
never return.
2. To demonstrate, supposing the force to vary as 1 / D² how far a body must fall both within
and without the Circle to acquire the Velocity with which a body revolves in a Circle.
3.
274 Suppose a body to be turned (sic) upwards with the Velocity with which it revolves in an
Ellipse, how high will it ascend? The same is asked supposing it to move in a parabola.
4. Suppose a force varying first as 1 / D³, secondly in a greater ratio than 1 / D² but less than
1 / D³, and thirdly in a less ratio than 1 / D², in each of these Cases to determine whether at
all, and where the body parting from the higher Apsid will come to the lower.
5. To determine in what situation of the moon’s Apsid they go most forwards, and in what
situation of her Nodes the Nodes go most backwards, and why?
6. In the cubic equation x³ + qx + r = 0 which wants the second term; supposing x = a + b
and 3ab = −q, to determine the value of x. (sic.)

7. To find the fluxion of xr × (yn + zm)1/q.
8. To find the fluent of aẋ / (a + x).

9. To find the fluxion of the mth power of the Logarithm of x.
10. Of right-angled Triangles containing a given Area to find that whereof the sum of the two
legs AB + BC shall be the least possible. [This and the two following questions are illustrated
by diagrams. The angle at B is the right angle.]
11. To find the Surface of the Cone ABC. [The cone is a right one on a circular base.]
12. To rectify the arc DB of the semicircle DBV.

In cases of equality in the senate-house examination, the acts were still
taken
275
into account in settling the tripos order: and in 1786, when the
second, third, and fourth wranglers came out equal in the examination, a
memorandum was published that the second place was given to that
candidate who dialectis magis est versatus, and the third place to that one
who in scholis sophistarum melius disputavit.
At this time there were various intervals in the examination by the
moderators, and the examinations by the extraneous examiners took place
in these intervals. Those candidates who at any time were not being
examined occupied themselves with amusements, provided they were not
too boisterous and obvious: probably dice and cards played a large part in
them. Gunning in an amusing account of his examination in 1788 talks of
playing with a teetotum51 on the Wednesday (when specified works by
Locke and Paley formed the subjects of examination), and says this game
“was carried on with great spirit ... by considerable numbers during the
whole of the examination.”
About this period, 1790, the custom of printing the problem papers was
introduced, but until 1828 the other papers continued to be dictated. Since
then all the papers have been printed.

insert here the following letter52 from William Gooch, of Caius, in which
I276
he described his examination in the senate-house in 1791. It must be
remembered that it is the letter of an undergraduate addressed to his father
and mother, and was not intended either for preservation or publication: a
fact which certainly does not detract from its value.
Monday ¼ aft. 12.
We have been examin’d this Morning in pure Mathematics & I’ve hitherto kept just about even
with Peacock which is much more than I expected. We are going at 1 o’clock to be examin’d
till 3 in Philosophy.

From 1 till 7 I did more than Peacock; But who did most at Moderator’s Rooms this Evening
from 7 till 9, I don’t know yet;—but I did above three times as much as the Senr Wrangler last
year, yet I’m afraid not so much as Peacock.
Between One & three o’Clock I wrote up 9 sheets of Scribbling Paper so you may suppose I
was pretty fully employ’d.
Tuesday Night.
I’ve been shamefully us’d by Lax to-day;—Tho’ his anxiety for Peacock must (of course) be
very great, I never suspected that his Partially (sic) wd get the better of his Justice. I had
entertain’d too high an opinion of him to suppose it.—he gave Peacock a long private
Examination & then came to me (I hop’d) on the same subject, but ’twas only to Bully me as
much as he could,—whatever I said (tho’ right) he tried to convert into Nonsense by seeming to
misunderstand me. However I don’t entirely dispair of being first, tho’ you see Lax seems
determin’d that I shall not.—I had no Idea (before I went into the Senate-House) of being able to
contend at all with Peacock.
Wednesday evening.
277

Peacock & I are still in perfect Equilibrio & the Examiners themselves can give no guess yet
who is likely to be first;—a New Examiner (Wood of St. John’s, who is reckon’d the first
Mathematician in the University, for Waring doesn’t reside) was call’d solely to examine
Peacock & me only.—but by this new Plan nothing is yet determin’d.—So Wood is to examine
us again to-morrow morning.
Thursday evening.

Peacock is declar’d first & I second,—Smith of this Coll. is either 8th or 9th & Lucas is either
10th or 11th.—Poor Quiz Carver is one of the οἱ πολλοί;—I’m perfectly satisfied that the Senior
Wranglership is Peacock’s due, but certainly not so very undisputably as Lax pleases to
represent it—I understand that he asserts ’twas 5 to 4 in Peacock’s favor. Now Peacock & I have
explain’d to each other how we went on, & can prove indisputably that it wasn’t 20 to 19 in his
favor;—I cannot therefore be displeas’d for being plac’d second, tho’ I’m provov’d (sic) with
Lax for his false report (so much beneath the Character of a Gentleman.)—
N.B. it is my very particular Request that you dont mention Lax’s behaviour to me to any one.

Such was the form ultimately taken by the senate-house examination, a
form which it retained substantially without alteration for nearly half-a-
century. It soon became the sole test by which candidates were judged. The
University was not obliged to grant a degree to anyone who performed the
statutable exercises, and it was open to the senate to refuse to pass a
supplicat
278
for a bachelor’s degree in arts unless the candidate had presented
himself for the senate-house examination. In 1790 James Blackburn, of
Trinity, a questionist of exceptional abilities, was informed that in spite of
his good disputations he would not be allowed a degree unless he also
satisfied the examiners in the tripos. He accordingly solved one “very hard

problem,” though in consequence of a dispute with the authorities he
refused to attempt any more53.
Henceforth the examination was compulsory on all candidates pursuing the
normal course for the B.A. degree. In 1791 the University laid down rules54
for its conduct, so far as it concerned poll-men, decreeing that those who
passed were to be classified in four divisions or classes, the names in each
class to be arranged alphabetically, but not to be printed on the official
tripos lists. The classes in the final lists must be distinguished from the eight
preliminary classes issued before the commencement of the examination.
The men in the first six preliminary classes were expected to take honours;
those in the seventh and eighth preliminary classes were primâ facie poll-
men.

In 1799 the moderators announced55 that for the future they would require
every
279
candidate to show a competent knowledge of the first book of
Euclid’s Elements, arithmetic, vulgar and decimal fractions, simple and
quadratic equations, and selected books by Locke and Paley. Paley’s works
seem to be held in esteem by modern divines, and his Evidences, though not
his Philosophy, still remains (1917) one of the subjects of the Previous
Examination, but his contemporaries thought less highly of his writings, or
at any rate of his philosophy. Thus Best is quoted by Wordsworth56 as
saying of Paley’s Philosophy, “The tutors of Cambridge no doubt neutralize
by their judicious remarks, when they read it to their pupils, all that is
pernicious in its principles”: so also Richard Watson, bishop of Llandaff, in
his anecdotal autobiography57, says, in describing the senate-house
examination in which Paley was senior wrangler, that Paley was afterwards
known to the world by many excellent productions, “though there are some
... principles in his philosophy which I by no means approve.”
In 1800 the moderators extended to all men in the first four preliminary
classes the privilege of being allowed to attempt the problem papers:
hitherto this privilege had been confined to candidates placed in the first
two
280
classes. Until 1828 the problem papers were set in the evenings, and in
the rooms of the moderator, but many of the so-called problems were really
pieces of bookwork or easy riders. No problems were ever set to the men in
the seventh and eighth preliminary classes, which contained the poll-men.

The University Calendars date from 1796, and from 1802 to 1882 inclusive
contain the printed tripos papers of the previous January. The papers from
1801 to 1820 and from 1838 to 1849 inclusive were also published in
separate volumes, which are to be found in most public libraries. None of
the bookwork papers of this time are now extant, but it is believed that they
contained few, if any, riders. In looking at these papers to form an opinion
of the knowledge current at the time it is necessary to bear in mind that the
text-books then in circulation were far from satisfactory.
The Calendar of 1802 contains a diffuse account of the examination. It
commences as follows:
On the Monday morning, a little before eight o’clock, the students, generally about a hundred,
enter the Senate-House, preceded by a master of arts, who on this occasion is styled the father of
the College to which he belongs. On two pillars at the entrance of the Senate-House are hung the
classes and a paper denoting the hours of examination of those who are thought most competent
to contend for honours. Immediately after the University clock has struck eight, the names are
called over, and the absentees, being marked, are subject to certain fines. The classes to be
281
examined are called out, and proceed to their appointed tables, where they find pens, ink, and
paper provided in great abundance. In this manner, with the utmost order and regularity, two-
thirds of the young men are set to work within less than five minutes after the clock has struck
eight. There are three chief tables, at which six examiners preside. At the first, the senior
moderator of the present year and the junior moderator of the preceding year. At the second, the
junior moderator of the present, and the senior moderator of the preceding year. At the third, two
moderators of the year previous to the two last, or two examiners appointed by the Senate. The
two first tables are chiefly allotted to the six first classes; the third, or largest, to the οἱ πολλοί.
The young men hear the propositions or questions delivered by the examiners; they instantly
apply themselves; demonstrate, prove, work out and write down, fairly and legibly (otherwise
their labour is of little avail) the answers required. All is silence; nothing heard save the voice of
the examiners; or the gentle request of some one, who may wish a repetition of the enunciation.
It requires every person to use the utmost dispatch; for as soon as ever the examiners perceive
anyone to have finished his paper and subscribed his name to it another question is immediately
given....
The examiners are not seated, but keep moving round the tables, both to judge how matters
proceed and to deliver their questions at proper intervals. The examination, which embraces
arithmetic, algebra, fluxions, the doctrine of infinitesimals and increments, geometry,
trigonometry, mechanics, hydrostatics, optics, and astronomy, in all their various gradations, is
varied according to circumstances: no one can anticipate a question, for in the course of five
minutes he may be dragged from Euclid to Newton, from the humble arithmetic of Bonnycastle
282
to the abstruse analytics of Waring. While this examination is proceeding at the three tables
between the hours of eight and nine, printed problems are delivered to each person of the first
and second classes; these he takes with him to any window he pleases, where there are pens, ink,
and paper prepared for his operations.

The examination began at eight o’clock in the morning. At nine the papers
had to be given up, and half-an-hour was allowed for breakfast. At half-past
nine the candidates came back, and were examined in the way described
above till eleven, when the senate-house was again cleared. An interval of
two hours then took place. At one o’clock all returned to be again
examined. At three the senate-house was cleared for half-an-hour, and, on
the return of the candidates, the examination was continued till five. At
seven in the evening the first four classes went to the senior moderator’s
rooms to solve problems. They were finally dismissed for the day at nine,
after eight hours of examination. The work of Tuesday was similar to that of
Monday: Wednesday was partly devoted to logic and moral philosophy.
At eight o’clock on Thursday morning a first list was published with all
candidates of about equal merits bracketed. Until nine o’clock a candidate
had the right to challenge anyone above him to an examination to see which
was
283
the better. At nine a second list came out, and a candidate’s right of
challenge was then confined to the bracket immediately above his own. If
he proved himself the equal of or better than the man so challenged his
name was transferred to the upper bracket. To challenge and then to fail to
substantiate the claim to removal to a higher bracket was considered rather
ridiculous. Revised lists were published at eleven, three, and five, according
to the results of the examination during that day. At five the whole
examination ended. The proctors, moderators, and examiners then retired to
a room under the public library to prepare the list of honours, which was
sometimes settled in a few hours, but sometimes not before two or three the
next morning. The name of the senior wrangler was generally announced at
midnight, and the rest of the list the next morning. In 1802 there were
eighty-six candidates for honours, and they were divided into fifteen
brackets, the first and second brackets containing each one name only, and
the third bracket four names.
It is clear from the above account that the competition fostered by the
examination had developed so much as to threaten to impair its usefulness
as guiding the studies of the men. On the other hand, there can be no doubt
that the carefully devised arrangements for obtaining an accurate order of
merit
284
stimulated the best men to throw all their energies into the work for
the examination. It is easy to point out the double-edged result of a strict

order of merit. The problem before the University was to retain its
advantages while checking any abuses to which it might lead.
It was the privilege of the moderators to entertain the proctors and some of
the leading resident mathematicians the night before the issue of the final
list, and to communicate that list in confidence to their guests. This pleasant
custom survived till 1884. I revived the practice in 1890 when acting as
senior moderator, but it seems to have now ceased.
In 1806 Sir Frederick Pollock was senior wrangler, and in 1869 in answer to
an appeal from De Morgan for an account of the mathematical study of men
at the beginning of the century he wrote a letter58 which is sufficiently
interesting to bear reproduction:
I shall write in answer to your inquiry, all about my books, my study, and my degree, and leave
you to settle all about the proprieties which my letter may give rise to, as to egotism,
modesty, &c. The only books I read the first year were Wood’s Algebra (as far as quadratic
equations), Bonnycastle’s ditto, and Euclid (Simpson’s). In the second year I read Wood
(beyond quadratic equations), and Wood and Vince, for what they called the branches. In the
third year I read the Jesuit’s Newton and Vince’s Fluxions; these were all the books, but there
were certain mss. floating about which I copied—which belonged to Dealtry, second wrangler in
285
Kempthorne’s year. I have no doubt that I had read less and seen fewer books than any senior
wrangler of about my time, or any period since; but what I knew I knew thoroughly, and it was
completely at my fingers’ ends. I consider that I was the last geometrical and fluxional senior
wrangler; I was not up to the differential calculus, and never acquired it. I went up to college
with a knowledge of Euclid and algebra to quadratic equations, nothing more; and I never read
any second year’s lore during my first year, nor any third year’s lore during my second; my forte
was, that what I did know I could produce at any moment with perfect accuracy. I could repeat
the first book of Euclid word by word and letter by letter. During my first year I was not a
“reading” man (so called); I had no expectation of honours or a fellowship, and I attended all
the lectures on all subjects—Harwood’s anatomical, Wollaston’s chemical, and Farish’s
mechanical lectures—but the examination at the end of the first year revealed to me my powers.
I was not only in the first class, but it was generally understood I was first in the first class;
neither I nor anyone for me expected I should get in at all. Now, as I had taken no pains to
prepare (taking, however, marvellous pains while the examination was going on), I knew better
than anyone else the value of my examination qualities (great rapidity and perfect accuracy);
and I said to myself, “If you’re not an ass, you’ll be senior wrangler”; and I took to “reading”
accordingly. A curious circumstance occurred when the Brackets came out in the Senate-house
declaring the result of the examination: I saw at the top the name of Walter bracketed alone (as
he was); in the bracket below were Fiott, Hustler, Jephson. I looked down and could not find
my own name till I got to Bolland, when my pride took fire, and I said, “I must have beaten that
man, so I will look up again”; and on looking up carefully I found the nail had been passed
286
through my name, and I was at the top bracketed alone, even above Walter. You may judge what
my feelings were at this discovery; it is the only instance of two such brackets, and it made my
fortune—that is, made me independent, and gave me an immense college reputation. It was said
I was more than half of the examination before anyone else. The two moderators were
Hornbuckle, of St John’s, and Brown (Saint Brown), of Trinity. The Johnian congratulated me. I

said perhaps I might be challenged; he said, “Well, if you are you’re quite safe—you may sit
down and do nothing, and no one would get up to you in a whole day.” ...
Latterly the Cambridge examinations seem to turn upon very different matters from what
prevailed in my time. I think a Cambridge education has for its object to make good members of
society—not to extend science and make profound mathematicians. The tripos questions in the
Senate-house ought not to go beyond certain limits, and geometry ought to be cultivated and
encouraged much more than it is.

To this De Morgan replied:
Your letter suggests much, because it gives possibility of answer. The branches of algebra of
course mainly refer to the second part of Wood, now called the theory of equations. Waring was
his guide. Turner—whom you must remember as head of Pembroke, senior wrangler of 1767—
told a young man in the hearing of my informant to be sure and attend to quadratic equations. “It
was a quadratic,” said he, “made me senior wrangler.” It seems to me that the Cambridge
revivers were [Woodhouse,] Waring, Paley, Vince, Milner.
You had Dealtry’s mss. He afterwards published a very good book on fluxions. He merged his
mathematical fame in that of a Claphamite Christian. It is something to know that the tutor’s ms.
287
was in vogue in 1800–1806.
Now—how did you get your conic sections? How much of Newton did you read? From Newton
direct, or from tutor’s manuscript?
Surely Fiott was our old friend Dr Lee. I missed being a pupil of Hustler by a few weeks. He
retired just before I went up in February 1823. The echo of Hornbuckle’s answer to you about
the challenge has lighted on Whewell, who, it is said, wanted to challenge Jacob, and was
answered that he could not beat [him] if he were to write the whole day and the other wrote
nothing. I do not believe that Whewell would have listened to any such dissuasion.
I doubt your being the last fluxional senior wrangler. So far as I know, Gipps, Langdale,
Alderson, Dicey, Neale, may contest this point with you.

The answer, dated 7 August 1869, of Sir Frederick Pollock to these
questions was as follows:
You have put together as revivers five very different men. Woodhouse was better than Waring,
who could not prove Wilson’s (Judge of C. P.) guess about the property of prime numbers; but
Woodhouse (I think) did prove it, and a beautiful proof it is. Vince was a bungler, and I think
utterly insensible of mathematical beauty.
Now for your questions. I did not get my conic sections from Vince. I copied a ms. of Dealtry. I
fell in love with the cone and its sections, and everything about it. I have never forsaken my
favourite pursuit; I delighted in such problems as two spheres touching each other and also the
inside of a hollow cone, &c. As to Newton, I read a good deal (men now read nothing), but I
read much of the notes. I detected a blunder which nobody seemed to be aware of. Tavel, tutor
of Trinity, was not; and he argued very favourably of me in consequence. The application of the
288
Principia I got from mss. The blunder was this: in calculating the resistance of a globe at the end
of a cylinder oscillating in a resisting medium they had forgotten to notice that there is a
difference between the resistance to a globe and a circle of the same diameter.

The story of Whewell and Jacob cannot be true. Whewell was a very, very considerable man, I
think not a great man. I have no doubt Jacob beat him in accuracy, but the supposed answer
cannot be true; it is a mere echo of what actually passed between me and Hornbuckle on the day
the Tripos came out—for the truth of which I vouch. I think the examiners are taking too
practical a turn; it is a waste of time to calculate actually a longitude by the help of logarithmic
tables and lunar observations. It would be a fault not to know how, but a greater to be handy at
it.

A few minor changes in the senate-house examination were made in 180859.
A fifth day was added to the examination. Of the five days thus given up to
it three were devoted to mathematics, one to logic, philosophy, and religion,
and one to the arrangement of the brackets. Apart from the evening paper
the examination on each of the first three days lasted six hours: of these
eighteen hours, eleven were assigned to bookwork and seven to problems.
The problem papers were set from six to ten in the evening.
A letter from Whewell, dated 19 January 1816, thus describes his
examination in the senate-house60:
Jacob. Whewell. Such is the order in which we are fixed after a week’s examination.... I had
289
before been given to understand that a great deal depended upon being able to write the greatest
possible quantity in the smallest time, but of the rapidity which was actually necessary I had
formed the most distant idea. I am upon no occasion a quick writer, and upon subjects where I
could not go on without sometimes thinking a little I soon found myself considerably behind. I
was therefore surprised, and even astonished, to find myself bracketed off, as it is called, in the
second place; that is, on the day when a new division of the classes is made for the purpose of
having a closer examination of the respective merits of men who come pretty near to each other,
I was not classed with anybody, but placed alone in the second bracket. The man who is at the
head of the list is of Caius College, and was always expected to be very high, though I do not
know that anybody expected to see him so decidedly superior as to be bracketed off by himself.

The tendency to cultivate mechanical rapidity was a grave evil, and lasted
long after Whewell’s time. According to rumour the highest honours in
1845 were obtained by assiduous practice in writing61.
The devotion of the Cambridge school to geometrical and fluxional
methods had led to its isolation from contemporary continental
mathematicians. Early in the nineteenth century the evil consequence of this
began to be recognized; and it was felt to be little less than a scandal that
the
290
researches of Lagrange, Laplace, and Legendre were unknown to many
Cambridge mathematicians save by repute. An attempt to explain the
notation and methods of the calculus as used on the continent was made by

Woodhouse, later professor in the University, who stands out as the apostle
of the new movement.
It is doubtful if Woodhouse could have brought analytical methods into
vogue by himself; but his views were enthusiastically adopted by three
students, Peacock, Babbage, and Herschel, who succeeded in carrying out
the reforms he had suggested. They created an Analytical Society which
Babbage explained was formed to advocate “the principles of pure d-ism as
opposed to the dot-age of the University.” The character of the instruction
in mathematics at the University has at all times largely depended on the
text-books in use, and the importance of good books of this class was
emphasized by a traditional rule that questions should not be set on a new
subject in the tripos unless it had been discussed in some treatise suitable
and available for Cambridge students62. Hence the importance attached to
the publication of the work on analytical trigonometry by Woodhouse in
1809, and of the works on the differential calculus issued by members of
the Analytical Society in 1816 and 1820.
In
291
1817 Peacock, who was moderator, introduced the symbols for
differentiation into the papers set in the senate-house examination; his
colleague, however, continued to use the fluxional notation. Peacock
himself wrote on 17 March 1817 (i.e. shortly after the examination) on the
subject as follows63:
I assure you ... that I shall never cease to exert myself to the utmost in the cause of reform, and
that I will never decline any office which may increase my power to effect it. I am nearly certain
of being nominated to the office of Moderator in the year 1818–19, and as I am an examiner in
virtue of my office, for the next year I shall pursue a course even more decided than hitherto,
since I shall feel that men have been prepared for the change, and will then be enabled to have
acquired a better system by the publication of improved elementary books. I have considerable
influence as a lecturer, and I will not neglect it. It is by silent perseverance only that we can
hope to reduce the many-headed monster of prejudice, and make the University answer her
character as the loving mother of good learning and science.

In 1818 all candidates for honours, that is, all men in the first six
preliminary classes, were allowed to attempt the problems: this change was
made by the moderators.
In 1819 Peacock, who was again moderator, induced his colleague to adopt
the new notation. It was employed in the next year by Whewell, and in the
following
292
year by Peacock again. Henceforth the calculus in its modern

language and analytical methods were freely used, new subjects were
introduced, and for many years the examination provided a mathematical
training fairly abreast of the times.
By this time the disputations had ceased to have any immediate effect on a
man’s place in the tripos. Thus Whewell64, writing about his duties as
moderator in 1820, said:
You would get very exaggerated ideas of the importance attached to it [an Act] if you were to
trust Cumberland; I believe it was formerly more thought of than it is now. It does not, at least
immediately, produce any effect on a man’s place in the tripos, and is therefore considerably less
attended to than used to be the case, and in most years is not very interesting after the five or six
best men: so that I look for a considerable exercise of, or rather demand for, patience on my
part. The other part of my duty in the Senate House consists in manufacturing wranglers, senior
optimes, etc. and is, while it lasts, very laborious.

Of the examination itself in this year he wrote as follows65:
The examination in the Senate House begins to-morrow, and is rather close work while it lasts.
We are employed from seven in the morning till five in the evening in giving out questions and
receiving written answers to them; and when that is over, we have to read over all the papers
which we have received in the course of the day, to determine who have done best, which is a
293
business that in numerous years has often kept the examiners up the half of every night; but this
year is not particularly numerous. In addition to all this, the examination is conducted in a
building which happens to be a very beautiful one, with a marble floor and a highly ornamented
ceiling; and as it is on the model of a Grecian temple, and as temples had no chimneys, and as a
stove or a fire of any kind might disfigure the building, we are obliged to take the weather as it
happens to be, and when it is cold we have the full benefit of it—which is likely to be the case
this year. However, it is only a few days, and we have done with it.

A sketch of the examination in the previous year from the point of view of
an examinee was given by J. M. F. Wright66, but there is nothing of special
interest in it.

Sir George B. Airy67 gave the following sketch of his recollections of the
reading and studies of undergraduates of his time and of the tripos of 1823,
in which he had been senior wrangler:
At length arrived the Monday morning on which the examination for the B.A. degree was to
begin.... We were all marched in a body to the Senate-House and placed in the hands of the
Moderators. How the “candidates for honours” were separated from the οἱ πολλοί I do not know,
I presume that the Acts and the Opponencies had something to do with it. The honour candidates
were divided into six groups: and of these Nos. 1 and 2 (united), Nos. 3 and 4 (united), and
294
Nos. 5 and 6 (united), received the questions of one Moderator. No. 1, Nos. 2 and 3 (united),
Nos. 4 and 5 (united), and No. 6, received those of the other Moderator. The Moderators were
reversed on alternate days. There were no printed question-papers: each examiner had his bound

manuscript of questions, and he read out his first question; each of the examinees who thought
himself able proceeded to write out his answer, and then orally called out “Done.” The
Moderator, as soon as he thought proper, proceeded with another question. I think there was
only one course of questions on each day (terminating before 3 o’clock, for the Hall dinner).
The examination continued to Friday mid-day. On Saturday morning, about 8 o’clock, the list of
honours (manuscript) was nailed on the door of the Senate House.

It must be remembered that for students pursuing the normal course the
senate-house examination still provided the only avenue to a degree. That
examination involved a knowledge of the elements of moral philosophy and
theology, an acquaintance with the rules of formal logic, and the power of
reading and writing scholastic Latin, but mathematics was the predominant
subject, and this led to a certain one-sidedness in education. The evil of this
was generally recognized, and in 1822 various reforms were introduced in
the university curriculum; in particular the Previous Examination was
established for students in their second year, the subjects being prescribed
Greek
295
and Latin works, a Gospel, and Paley’s Evidences. Set classical
books were introduced in the final examination of poll-men; and another
honour or tripos examination was established for classical students. These
alterations came into effect in 1824; and henceforth the senate-house
examination, so far as it related to mathematical students, was known as the
Mathematical Tripos.
In 1827 the scheme of examination in the mathematical tripos was revised.
By regulations68 which came into operation in January 1828, four days,
exclusive of the day of arranging the brackets, were devoted to the
examination; the number of hours of examination was twenty-three, of
which seven were assigned to problems. On the first two days all the
candidates had the same questions proposed to them, inclusive of the
evening problems, and the examination on those days excluded the higher
and more difficult parts of mathematics, in order, in the words of the report,
“that the candidates for honours may not be induced to pursue the more
abstruse and profound mathematics, to the neglect of more elementary
knowledge.” Accordingly, only such questions as could be solved without
the aid of the differential calculus were set on the first day, and those set on
the second day involved only its elementary applications. The classes were
reduced
296
to four, determined as before by the exercises in the schools.
The regulations of 1827 definitely prescribed that all the papers should be
printed. They are also noticeable as being the last which gave the examiners

power to ask vivâ voce questions, though such questions “were restricted to
asking about propositions contained in the mathematical works commonly
in use at the University, or examples and explanations of such
propositions.” It was further recommended that no paper should contain
more questions than well-prepared students could be expected to answer
within the time allowed for it, but that if any candidate, before the end of
the time, had answered all the questions in the paper, the examiners might
propose additional questions vivâ voce. The power of granting honorary
optime degrees now ceased; it had already fallen into abeyance. Henceforth
the examination was conducted under definite rules, and I no longer
concern myself with its traditions.
In the same year as these changes became effective the examination for the
poll degree was separated from the tripos with different sets of papers and a
different schedule of subjects69. It was, however, still nominally considered
as
297
forming part of the senate-house examination, and until 1858 those who
obtained a poll degree were arranged in four classes, described as fourth,
fifth, sixth, and seventh, as if in continuation of the junior optimes or third
class of the tripos.
In the course henceforth ordained for the poll or ordinary degree, the
examination, later known as “the General,” represents that part of the old
senate-house examination which was intended for the poll-men, but
gradually it was moved to an earlier period in the normal course taken by
the men. In 1851 admission to the classical tripos70 was allowed to others
than those who passed the mathematical tripos, and this provided another
avenue to a degree entirely independent of the old senate-house
examination. In 1852 another set of examinations, at first called “the
Professor’s Examinations,” and now somewhat modified and known as “the
Specials,” was instituted for all poll-men to take before they could qualify
for a degree.
In 1858 the fiction that the poll examinations were part of the senate-house
examination was abandoned, and subsequently they have been treated as
providing an independent method of obtaining the degree: thus now the
mathematical tripos is the sole representative of the old senate-house
examination.
298
Since 1858 numerous other ways of obtaining a degree in arts

have been established, and it is now possible to graduate by showing
proficiency in very special, or even technical subjects.

Further changes in the mathematical tripos were introduced in 183371. The
duration of the examination, before the issue of the brackets, was extended
to five days, and the number of hours of examination on each day was fixed
at five and a half: seven and a half hours were assigned to problems. The
examination on the first day was confined to subjects that did not require
the differential calculus, and only the simplest applications of the calculus
were permitted on the second and third days. During the first four days of
the examination the same papers were set to all the candidates alike, but on
the fifth day the examination was conducted according to classes. No
reference was made to vivâ voce questions, though permission was reserved
to re-examine candidates if it were found necessary: this right remained in
force till 1848, but in fact was never used. In December 1834, a few
unimportant details were amended.
Mr Earnshaw, the senior moderator in 1836, informed me that he believed
that the tripos of that year was the earliest one in which all the papers were
marked,
299
and that in previous years the examiners had partly relied on their
impression of the answers given.

New regulations came into force72 in 1839. The examination now lasted for
six days, and continued as before for five hours and a half each day: eight
and a half hours were assigned to problems. Throughout the whole
examination the same papers were set to all candidates, and no reference
was made to any preliminary classes. It was no doubt in accordance with
the spirit of these changes that the acts in the schools should be abolished,
but they were discontinued by the moderators of 1839 without the authority
of the senate. The examination was for the future confined73 to
mathematics.
In the same year in which the new scheme came into force a proposal to
reopen the subject was rejected on 6 March 1839.
The difficulty of bringing professorial lectures into relation with the needs
of students has more than once been before the University. The desirability
of it was emphasized by a syndicate in February 1843, which recommended

conferences
300
at stated intervals between the mathematical professors and
examiners. This report, which foreshadowed the creation of a Mathematical
Board, was rejected by the senate on 31 March.
A few years later the scheme of the examination was again reconstructed by
regulations74 which came into effect in 1848. The duration of the
examination was extended to eight days. The examination lasted in all
forty-four and a half hours, twelve of which were devoted to problems. The
first three days were assigned to specified elementary subjects; in the papers
set on these days riders were to be set as well as bookwork, but the methods
of analytical geometry and the calculus were excluded. After the first three
days there was a short interval, at the end of which the examiners issued a
list of those who had so acquitted themselves as to deserve mathematical
honours. Only those whose names were contained in this list were admitted
to the last five days of the examination, which was devoted to the higher
parts of mathematics. After the conclusion of the examination the
examiners, taking into account the whole eight days, brought out the list
arranged in order of merit. No provision was made for any rearrangement of
this list corresponding to the examination of the brackets. The arrangements
of 1848 remained in force till 1873.
In
301
the same year as these regulations came into force, a Board of
Mathematical Studies (consisting of the mathematical professors, with the
moderators and examiners for the current year and the two preceding years)
was constituted75 by the senate. From that time forward their minutes
supply a permanent record of the changes gradually introduced into the
tripos. I do not allude to subsequent changes which only concern
unimportant details of the examination.
In May 1849, the board issued a report in which, after giving a review of
the past and existing state of the mathematical studies in the University,
they recommended that the mathematical theories of electricity, magnetism,
and heat should not be admitted as subjects of examination. In the following
year they issued a second report, in which they recommended the omission
of elliptic integrals, Laplace’s coefficients, capillary attraction, and the
figure of the earth considered as heterogeneous, as well as a definite
limitation of the questions in the lunar and planetary theories. In making

these recommendations the board were only recognizing what had become
the practice in the examination.
I may, in passing, mention a curious attempt which was made in 1853 and
1854
302
to assist candidates to estimate the relative difficulty of the questions
asked. This was effected by giving to the candidates, at the same time as the
examination paper, a slip of paper on which the marks assigned for the
bookwork and rider for each question were printed. I mention the fact
merely because these things are rapidly forgotten and not because it is of
any intrinsic value. I possess a complete set of slips which came to me from
Todhunter.
In 1856 there was an amusing difference of opinion between the vice-
chancellor and the moderators. The vice-chancellor issued a notice to say
that for the convenience of the University he had directed the tripos lists to
be published at 8.0 a.m. as well as at 9.0 a.m., but when members of the
senate arrived at 8.0 the moderators said that the list should not be read
until 9.0.
Considerable changes in the scheme of examination were introduced in
1873. On 5 December 1865, the board had recommended the addition of
Laplace’s coefficients and the figure of the earth considered as
heterogeneous as subjects of the examination; the report does not seem to
have been brought before the senate, but attention was called to the fact that
certain departments of mathematics and mathematical physics found no
place in the tripos schedules, and were neglected by most students.
Accordingly, a syndicate was appointed on 6 June 1867, to consider the
303
matter, and a scheme drawn up by them was approved in 186876 and came
into effect in 1873.
The new scheme of examination was framed on the same lines as that of
1848. The subjects in the first three days were left unchanged, but an extra
day was added, devoted to the elements of mathematical physics. The
essence of the modification was the greatly extended range of subjects
introduced into the schedule of subjects for the last five days, and their
arrangement in divisions; the total marks awarded to the questions in each
of the five divisions being approximately in a proportion to the total marks
assigned to the questions in the first three days as 2, 1, 1, 1, 2/3 to 1

respectively. Under these regulations the number of examiners was
increased from four to five.
The assignment of marks to groups of subjects was made under the
impression that the best candidates would concentrate their abilities on a
selection of subjects from the various divisions. But it was found that,
unless the questions were made extremely difficult, more marks could be
obtained by reading superficially all the subjects in the five divisions than
by attaining real proficiency in a few of the higher ones: while the wide
range
304
of subjects rendered it practically impossible to cover all the ground
thoroughly in the time allowed. The failure was so pronounced that in 1877
another syndicate was appointed to consider the mathematical studies and
examinations of the University. They presented an elaborate scheme, but on
13 May 1878, some of the most important parts of it were rejected; their
subsequent proposals, accepted on 21 November 1878 (by 62 to 49),
represented a compromise which pleased few members of the senate77.
Under the new scheme which came into force in 1882 the tripos was
divided into two portions: the first portion was taken at the end of the third
year of residence, the range of subjects being practically the same as in the
regulations of 1848, and the result brought out in the customary order of
merit. The second portion was held in the following January, and was open
only to those who had been wranglers in the preceding June. This portion
was confined to higher mathematics and appealed chiefly to specialists: the
result was brought out in three classes, each arranged in alphabetical order.
The moderators and examiners conducted the whole examination without
any extraneous aid.
305
In the next year or two further amendments were made78, the second part of
the examination being moved to the June of the fourth year, and thrown
open to all men who had graduated in the tripos of the previous June. At the
same time the conduct of the examination in part ii was transferred to four
examiners nominated by the board: this put it largely under the control of
the professors. The range of subjects of part ii was also greatly extended,
and candidates were encouraged to select only a few of them. It was further
arranged that part i might be taken at the end of a man’s second year of
residence, though in that case it would not qualify for a degree. A student

who availed himself of this leave could take part ii at the end either of his
third or of his fourth year as he pleased.
The general effect of these changes was to destroy the homogeneity of the
tripos. Objections to the new scheme were soon raised. Especially, it was
said—whether rightly or wrongly—that part i contained too many technical
subjects to serve as a general educational training for any save
mathematicians; that the distinction of a high place in the historic list
produced on its results tended to prevent the best men taking it in their
second year, though by this time they had read enough to be able to do so;
and
306
that part ii was so constructed as to appeal only to professional
mathematicians, and thus the higher branches of mathematics were
neglected in the University by all save a few specialists.
Whatever value be attached to these opinions, the number of students
studying mathematics fell rapidly under the scheme of 1886. In 1899 the
board proposed79 further changes. These seemed to some members of the
senate to be likely still further to decrease the number of men who took up
the subject as one of general education; and the two main proposals were
rejected, 15 February 1900 by votes of 151 to 130 and 161 to 129.

A few years later, in 190780, the board brought forward another scheme,
proposing changes so sweeping as almost to destroy the identity of the
tripos. Under this the examination in part ii was abolished—a change on
which all parties were agreed. There was introduced an examination, called
part i, confined to elementary mathematics, which could be taken as early as
the second term of residence, and for which in certain cases of failure a
student could present himself again, but this, although an examination for
honours,
307
did not qualify for a degree. In the new part ii, taken normally at
the end of the third year of residence and qualifying for a degree, candidates
were given some option in the subjects of their examination, and order of
merit was abolished. The first examination under this scheme was held in
1908.
A remarkable feature in the history of the Cambridge mathematical school
is the fact that for nearly two hundred years most students were accustomed
to rely for preparation for it on work done with a private tutor or “Coach.”
Towards the close of the seventeenth century we first read of these “pupil-

mongers” (among whom Laughton of Clare was the most famous) who
made it their business to prepare men for their “acts.”
With the rise of the senate-house examination the importance of this class
of teachers increased, for success in that examination was regarded as the
crown of the academic course, and brought with it, in the shape of a
fellowship, an immediate competence with a reasonable prospect of an
assured career. It was the business of private tutors to prepare their pupils
for the examination, and among those who in this way came to the front
shortly after the middle of the eighteenth century were Richard Watson,
John Wilson whose name is still known by its association with a proposition
in
308
the theory of numbers, and Robert Thorp. The last named teacher was
described, about 1761, as being “of eminent use to young men in preparing
them for the Senate-House Examinations and peculiarly successful”; and it
was added that “one young man of no shining reputation with the assistance
of Mr Thorp’s tuition had stood at the head of wranglers.”
In a grace of the senate, passed in 1781, it is stated that almost all sophs
then resorted to private tuition, and for more than a century subsequently,
the practice was well established. These were the men who really directed
the reading of the students. Even non-residents, if reputed to be successful
coaches, drew pupils. Thus John Dawson, a medical practitioner at
Sedbergh, regularly prepared pupils in the vacations for the senate-house
examination, and at least eleven of the senior wranglers between 1781 and
1800 are known to have studied under him.
During the nineteenth century the system developed under two remarkable
teachers, William Hopkins, 1793–1866, and Edward John Routh, 1831–
1907, to whom the vast majority of the better known Cambridge
mathematicians of this century owed most of what they learnt in their
undergraduate days. Hopkins in the twenty-two years from 1828–49, had
among his pupils one hundred and seventy-five wranglers, of whom
seventeen
309
were senior, forty-four in one of the first three places, and one
hundred and eight in one of the first ten places. So too Routh, in the thirty-
one years from 1858–88, had between six hundred and seven hundred
pupils, most of whom became wranglers, twenty-seven being senior in the
tripos and forty-one Smith’s prizemen. To organize teaching on this scale
demanded rare gifts.

Perhaps it may be of interest to describe, by way of example, the general
features of Routh’s system. He gave catechetical lectures three times a week
to classes of eight or ten men of approximately equal knowledge and ability.
The work to be done between two lectures was heavy, and included the
solution of some eight or nine fairly hard examples on the subject of the
lectures. Examination papers were also constantly set on tripos lines
(bookwork and riders), while there was a weekly paper of problems set to
all pupils alike. All papers sent up were marked in public, the comments on
them in class were generally brief, and, to save time, solutions of the
questions were circulated in manuscript. Teaching also was supplemented
by manuscripts on the subjects. Finally to the more able students he was
accustomed, shortly before their tripos, to give memoirs or books for
analyses and commentaries. The course for the first three years and the two
earlier
310
long vacations covered all the subjects of the examination—the last
long vacation and the first term of the fourth year were devoted to a
thorough revision.
Under Hopkins and Routh there was no trace of what is called cramming;
they might say that a particular demonstration was so long that it could not
be required in the tripos, but none the less they expected their pupils to
master it. The system had faults, but it had the merit of providing a
systematic grounding in a wide field of subjects. The effectiveness of
teaching of this kind was dependent on intimate constant personal
intercourse, and the importance of this cannot be overrated. The scandal of
the system consisted in the fact that a man was compelled to pay heavy fees
to the University and his College for instruction, and yet found it
advantageous at his own expense to go elsewhere to get it.
During the last quarter of the nineteenth century college lecturers began to
share with the coaches the general direction of studies. Post-graduate work
was also to some extent brought under the influence of professors and
university lecturers—these not uncommonly suggesting subjects for
dissertations for fellowships, Smith’s prizes, etc. But the students thus
influenced were not numerous, and it still remains true that the majority of
mathematical
311
undergraduates are so out of touch with the professors in the
subject as to be unacquainted even with their personal appearance.

Such was the mathematical tripos and its history. Whatever its demerits, it
dominated the situation, and Cambridge mathematics and mathematicians
of the nineteenth century were the direct product of the system it embodied.
Judged by the output, I do not think it can be said to have resulted in failure;
and perhaps Cayley, Sylvester, Adams, Green, Stokes, Kelvin, and Maxwell
—to mention no others—were none the worse for having been compelled to
go through the course.
The reconstitution in 1907 of the tripos, and the destruction of many of its
distinctive features must profoundly modify the future history of
mathematics at Cambridge, but forecasts on such a theme would be useless.
The curious origin of the term tripos has been repeatedly told, and an
account of it may fitly close this chapter. Formerly there were three
principal occasions on which questionists were admitted to the title or
degree of bachelor. The first of these was at the comitia priora, held on Ash-
Wednesday, for the best men in the year. The next was at the comitia
posteriora, which was held a few weeks later, and at which any student who
had distinguished himself in the quadragesimal exercises subsequent to
Ash-Wednesday
312
had his seniority reserved to him. Lastly, there was the
comitia minora, for students who had in no special way distinguished
themselves.
In the fifteenth century an important part in the ceremony on each of these
occasions was taken by a certain “ould bachilour,” who sat upon a three-
legged stool or tripos before the proctors and tested the abilities of the
would-be graduates by arguing some question with the “eldest son,” who
was selected from them as their representative. To assist the latter in what
might be an unequal contest his “father,” that is, the officer of his college
who was to present him for his degree, was allowed to come to his
assistance.
The discussion took place in Great St Mary’s Church, and marked the
admission of the student to a position with new responsibilities, while the
season of Lent was chosen with a view to bring this into prominence. The
puritan party objected to the semi-ecclesiastical character of the
proceedings, and in the course of the sixteenth century set themselves to
bring the ceremony into disrepute. The part played by the questionist now

became purely formal, though a serious debate still sometimes took place
between the father of the senior questionist and a regent master who
represented the University: this, however, came to be prefaced by a speech
by the bachelor, who was now called Mr Tripos, just as we speak of a judge
as
313
the bench, or of a rower as an oar. Ultimately public opinion permitted
Mr Tripos to say pretty much what he pleased, so long as it was not dull and
was scandalous. The speeches he delivered or the verses he recited were
generally printed and preserved by the registrary, and were known as the
tripos verses: originally they referred to the subjects of the disputations then
propounded. The earliest copies now extant are those for 1575.
The university officials, to whom the personal criticisms in which
Mr Tripos indulged were by no means pleasing, repeatedly exhorted him to
remember “while exercising his privilege of humour, to be modest withal.”
In 1710, says Mullinger81, “the authorities after condemning the excessive
license of the tripos announced that the comitia at Lent would in future be
conducted in the Senate-House; and all members of the University, of
whatever order or degree, were forbidden to assail or mock the disputants
with scurrilous jokes or unseemly witticisms. About the year 1747–8, the
moderators initiated the practice of printing the honour lists on the back of
the sheets containing the tripos verses, and after the year 1755 this became
the invariable practice. By virtue of this purely arbitrary connection these
lists
314
themselves became known as the tripos; and eventually the
examination itself, of which they represented the results, also became
known by the same designation.”
Mr Tripos ceased to deliver his speech about 1750, but the issue of tripos
verses continued for nearly 150 years longer. During the latter part of this
time they consisted of four sets of verses, usually in Latin, but occasionally
in Greek, in which current topics in the University were treated lightly or
seriously as the writer thought fit. They were written for the proctors and
moderators by undergraduates or commencing bachelors, each of whom
was supposed to receive a pair of white kid gloves in recognition of his
labours. Thus gradually the word tripos changed its meaning “from a thing
of wood to a man, from a man to a speech, from a speech to sets of verses,
from verses to a sheet of coarse foolscap paper, from a paper to a list of
names, and from a list of names to a system of examination82.”

In 1895 the proctors and moderators, without consulting the senate, sent in
no verses, and thus, in spite of widespread regret, an interesting custom of
many centuries standing was destroyed. In defence of this action, it was
said
315
that the custom had never been embodied in statute or ordinance, and
thus was not obligatory, and further that its continuance was not of material
benefit to anybody. Such arguments are not conclusive, and we may well
regret the disappearance of historic ties unless it can be shown that they
cause inconvenience, which of course in this case could not be asserted.
By way of supplement to the foregoing account, I append a list of those
who have held or hold the various university mathematical chairs and
lectureships.
The Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics was founded in 1663 by Henry Lucas. The
successive occupants of the chair have been: Isaac Barrow, 1664–1669; Isaac Newton, 1669–
1702; William Whiston, 1702–1711; Nicholas Saunderson (Sanderson), 1711–1739; John
Colson, 1739–1760; Edward Waring, 1760–1798; Isaac Milner, 1798–1820; Robert Woodhouse,
1820–1822; Thomas Turton, 1822–1826; George Biddell Airy, 1826–1828; Charles Babbage,
1828–1839; Joshua King, 1839–1849; George Gabriel Stokes, 1849–1903; Joseph Larmor, 1903
et seq.
The Plumian Professorship of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy was founded in 1704 by
Thomas Plume. The successive occupants of the chair have been: Roger Cotes, 1707–1716;
Robert Smith, 1716–1760; Anthony Shepherd, 1760–1796; Samuel Vince, 1796–1822; Robert
Woodhouse, 1822–1828; George Biddell Airy, 1828–1836; James Challis, 1836–1883; George
Howard Darwin, 1883–1912; Arthur Stanley Eddington, 1913 et seq.
The Lowndean Professorship of Astronomy and Geometry was founded in 1749 by Thomas
Lowndes. The successive occupants of the chair have been: Roger Long, 1750–1771; John
Smith, 1771–1795; William Lax, 1795–1836; George Peacock, 1836–1858; John Couch Adams,
1858–1892; Robert Stawell Ball, 1892–1913; Henry Frederick Baker, 1914 et seq.
The Sadleirian Professorship of Pure Mathematics was founded, in 1863 from a benefaction
given in 1710 by Lady Sadleir. The successive occupants of the chair have been: Arthur Cayley,
1863–1895; Andrew Russell Forsyth, 1895–1910; Ernest William Hobson, 1910 et seq.
The Cavendish Professorship of Experimental Physics was founded in 1871 by the University;
316
the laboratory attached being built at the expense of the then Chancellor, the Duke of
Devonshire. The successive occupants of the chair have been: James Clerk Maxwell, 1871–
1879; John William, Baron Rayleigh, 1879–1884; Joseph John Thomson, 1884 et seq.
The Professorship of Mechanism and Applied Mechanics, with laboratories and shops attached,
was founded by the University in 1875. The successive occupants of the chair have been: James
Stuart, 1875–1890; James Alfred Ewing, 1890–1903; Bertram Hopkinson, 1903 et seq.
Five Lectureships in Mathematics were created in 1882 under the directions of Royal
Commissioners, and subsequently two others (now reduced to one other) tenable, if desired,
with one of the above, were founded. The successive holders have been: Joseph John Thomson,
1884; Andrew Russell Forsyth, 1884–1895; William Herrick Macaulay, 1884–1887; Richard

Tetley Glazebrook, 1884–1898; Ernest William Hobson, 1884–1910; Joseph Larmor, 1885–
1903; Richard Pendlebury, 1888–1901; Henry Frederick Baker, 1895–1914; Augustus Edward
Hough Love, 1898–1899; Hector Munro Macdonald, 1899–1904; Herbert William Richmond,
1901 et seq.; George Ballard Mathews, 1903–1905; James Hopwood Jeans, 1904–1906, 1910–
1912; John Gaston Leathem, 1905–1909; Robert Alfred Herman, 1906 et seq.; Edmund Taylor
Whittaker, 1905–1906; Thomas James I’Anson Bromwich, 1909 et seq.; John Hilton Grace,
1901 et seq.; Godfrey Harold Hardy, 1914 et seq.; Arthur Berry, 1914 et seq.

34 The greater part of this chapter formerly appeared in my Mathematical Recreations
and Essays, but a few paragraphs on “coaching” have been taken from a paper which I
wrote for distribution to those who attended the International Congress of
Mathematicians held in England in 1912. The subject is treated in Whewell’s Liberal
Education, Cambridge, three parts, 1845, 1850, 1853; Wordsworth’s Scholae
Academicae, Cambridge, 1877; my own Origin and History of the Mathematical
Tripos, Cambridge, 1880; Glaisher’s Presidential Address to the London Mathematical
Society, Transactions, vol. XVIII, 1886, pp. 4–38; and my History of the Study of
Mathematics at Cambridge, Cambridge, 1889.
35 Budget of Paradoxes, by A. De Morgan, London, 1872, p. 305.
36 See grace of 25 October 1680.
37 Ex. gr. see De la Pryme’s account of his graduation in 1694, Surtees Society,
vol. liv, 1870, p. 32.
38 W. Reneu, in his letters of 1708–10 describing the course for the B.A. degree,
makes no mention of the senate-house examination, and I think it is a reasonable
inference that it had not then been established.
39 Memoirs of Richard Cumberland, London, 1806, pp. 78–79.
40 Quoted by C. Wordsworth, Scholae Academicae, Cambridge, 1877, pp. 30–31.
41 Anecdotes of the Life of Richard Watson, London, 1817, pp. 18–19.
42 See grace of 25 October 1883; and the Cambridge University Reporter, 23 October
1883.
43 See grace of 11 February 1909, and the Cambridge University Reporter,
8 December 1908.
44 The Works of J. Jebb, London, 1787, vol. ii, pp. 290–297.
45 “Emulation, which is the principle upon which the plan is constructed.” The Works
of J. Jebb, London, 1787, vol. iii, p. 261.
46 The Works of J. Jebb, London, 1787, vol. iii, p. 272.
47 See graces of 5 July 1773, and of 17 February 1774.
48 See graces of 19, 20 March 1779.
49 Notice issued by the vice-chancellor, dated 19 May 1779.
50 The Challis Manuscripts, iii, 61. There are two copies almost identical, one dated
1785, the other 1786. Probably the paper printed in the text was set in 1786.
51 H. Gunning, Reminiscences, second edition, London, 1855, vol. i, p. 82.
52 C. Wordsworth, Scholae Academicae, Cambridge, 1877, pp. 322–323.
53 H. Gunning, Reminiscences, second edition, London, 1855, vol. i, p. 182.
54 See grace of 8 April 1791.

55 Communicated by the moderators to fathers of colleges on 18 January 1799, and
agreed to by the latter.
56 C. Wordsworth, Scholae Academicae, Cambridge, 1817, p. 123.
57 Anecdotes of the Life of Richard Watson, London, 1817, p. 19.
58 Memoir of A. De Morgan, London, 1882, pp. 387–392.
59 See graces, 15 December 1808.
60 S. Douglas, Life of W. Whewell, London, 1881, p. 20.
61 For a contemporary account of this, see C. A. Bristed, Five Years in an English
University, New York, 1852, pp. 233–239.
62 See ex. gr. the grace of 14 November 1827, referred to below.
63 Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, 1859, vol. ix, pp. 538–539.
64 Whewell’s Writings and Correspondence, ed. Todhunter, London, 1876, vol. ii,
p. 36.
65 S. Douglas, Life of Whewell, London, 1881, p. 56.
66 Alma Mater, London, 1827, vol. ii, pp. 58–98.
67 See Nature, vol. xxxv, 24 February 1887, pp. 397–399. See also his Autobiography,
Cambridge, 1896, chapter ii.
68 See grace, 14 November 1827.
69 See grace, 21 May 1828, confirming a report of 27 March 1828.
70 See grace of 31 October 1849.
71 See grace of 6 April 1832.
72 See grace of 30 May 1838.
73 Under a badly-worded grace passed on 11 May 1842, on the recommendation of a
syndicate on theological studies, candidates for mathematical honours were, after 1846,
required to attend the poll examination on Paley’s Moral Philosophy, the new testament
and ecclesiastical history. This had not been the intention of the senate, and on
14 March 1855, a grace was passed making this clear.
74 See grace of 13 May 1846, confirming a report of 23 March 1846.
75 See grace of 31 October 1848.
76 See grace of 2 June 1868. It was carried by a majority of only five in a house of 75.
77 See graces of 17 May 1877; 29 May 1878; and 21 November 1878; and the
Cambridge University Reporter, 2 April, 14 May, 4 June, 29 October, 12 November,
and 26 November 1878.
78 See graces of 13 December 1883; 12 June 1884; 10 February 1885; 29 October
1885; and 1 June 1886.
79 See reports dated 7 November 1899, and 20 January 1900.
80 See the reports of the special board, Cambridge University Reporter, 29 May and
20 November 1906, and the graces of 2 February 1907. The voting on the first grace
was 776 placet and 644 non-placet.
81 J. B. Mullinger, The University of Cambridge, Cambridge, vol. i, 1873, pp. 175–
176.
82 C. Wordsworth, Scholae Academicae, Cambridge, 1877, p. 21.

317
INDEX

Abbot, Wm, 263.
Acts, Scholastic, ch xv.
Adams, J. C, 311, 315.
Admonitions, Statutory, 221–4.
Airy, G. B, 173, 293, 315.
Alford, Hen, 174.
Allen, Thos, 34.
All Saints’ Ch, Camb, 85.
Alston Tankard, The, 123.
Ambler, John, 224.
Amos, Andrew, 130, 140.
Analytical Society, 290.
Anne of Denmark, 117.
Ansill, Thos, 13.
Apprenticeship, 187, 189.
Arrington Vicarage, 11.
Artistic Treasures, ch vi.
Arts, Students in, 187, 188.
Ascham, Roger, 203.
Assessors, Trin. Coll, 127.
Assistant Tutors, 44.
Athletic Club, Trinity, 125, 126.
Athletic Clubs, 174.
Atterbury, Fras, 68.
Attractions, Theory, 229, 234, 235.
Auditors, Trin. Coll, ch vii.
Aykerod Cup, The, 120.
Babbage, Chas, 290, 315.
Babington, Gervase, 57.
Backhouse, Jas, 42.
Bacon, Arth, 165.
Bacon, Fras, 108, 117, 165.
Baker, H. F, 315, 316.

Balfour, A. J, 112.
Ball, R. S, 315.
Balsham, Hugh de, 191.
Bancroft, Rich, 61, 62.
Bankes Ewer, The, 121.
Barnes, E. W, 43.
Barnes, J. W, 81.
Barrington Vicarage, 12.
Barrow, Isaac, 108, 109, 117, 150, 170, 171, 254, 315.
Beaumont, Robt, 92, 93, 94, 106.
Bedesmen, 18.
Bedwell, Thos, 254.
Bellot Tankard, The, 123.
Bennet, Bishop, 57.
Bennet Ewer, The, 121.
Bensley, Jas, 224.
Benson, E. W, 110, 111.
Bentley, Rich, 41, 67, 68, 98, 111, 134, 135, 172, 239.
Benton, Dan, 212.
Berry, Art, 316.
Best, H. D, 279.
Bill, Wm, 49, 88, 91, 92.
Billingsley, Hen, 254.
Birching, 199–208, 210–214.
Blackburn, Jas, 278.
Blakesley, J. W, 81.
Bland, Tobias, 214.
Blundeville, Thos, 254.
Board, Mathematical, 300, 301.
Boat Club, The, 124, 125, 174.
Bolland, Wm, 285.
Bonnycastle’s Algebra, 281, 284.
Bottisham Vicarage, 11.
Boude, Wm, 15, 16.
Boxworth Rectory, 12.
Boyle
318 Cup, The, 122.
Boys, Wm, 88.
Brackets, System of, 271–272, 282–288, 295, 300.
Brass, John, 255.
Bridges, Simon, 17.
Briggs, Hen, 254.
Briggs, Simon, 17.
Bristed, C. A, 174, 289.
Bromwich, T. J. I’A, 316.
Brooke, Rich, 128, 129, 131, 132.

Brown, John, 81, 286.
Browne, Galen, 223.
Browne, I. Hawkins, 110, 111.
Buckingham Ewer, The, 120.
Buckley, Wm, 254.
Bulaeus, 182.
Burcham, T. B, 81.
Burials in College, 103.
Burnand, F. C, 174.
Burnell, Edw, 128, 129, 130.
Busby Cup, The, 121.
Busby, Rich, 202.
Butler, H. M, 115, 175.
Butler, Miss, 100.
Butler’s Analogy, 219, 268.
Byron, Lord, 109, 117.
Calculus, The, 289–292.
Cambridge University, Beginnings of, ch xi.
Camden, Marquess of, 112.
Caroline, Queen, 138.
Cartwright, Thos, 93, 165.
Carus, Wm, 73, 74, 79, 81.
Carver, Chas, 277.
Cavendish Cup, The, 123.
Cavendish Professorship, 316.
Cayley, Art, 110, 111, 176, 311, 315.
Cecil, Sir Wm, 51.
Censer Boat, 87, 118.
Central Forces, ch xiii.
Challenge Plate, 124–126.
Challis, Jas, 315.
Challis MSS, 273.
Chantrey, Fras, 116.
Chapel Attendance, ch iv, 102.
Chapel, Compulsory, ch iv, 204, 206, 207.
Chapel, Trinity, ch v.
Charles I, 96, 168.
Charles II, 96, 107, 117.
Charrington, John, 115.
Cheadle Rectory, 12.
Cheke, John, 4, 5, 17, 191.
Chesterton Vicarage, 11.
Christ Church Westminsters, ch iii.
Christopherson, John, 88, 91, 92.

Cipriani, G. B, 116.
Clairaut, A. C, 240.
Clarence, Duke of, 174.
Clark, J. W, 130, 143.
Clarke, Sam, 254.
Clarke’s Attributes, 268.
Clarkson Cup, The, 120.
Classical Tripos, 295, 297.
Clerke, Gilbert, 254.
Coaches, Private, 307–310.
Coke, Edw, 111, 165.
Colleges, Early, 27, 191, 192.
Colson, John, 315.
Combination Rooms, 167.
Commencement-House, 153.
Commons, Out of, 216, 217, 219.
Confessions, 219, 221.
Conybeare, W. J, 76.
Conyers, Tobias, 212.
Corporal Punishments, 199–208, 210–215.
Cotes, Roger, 98, 172, 254, 267, 315.
Cotton, G. E. L, 76.
Cowley, Abraham, 66, 111, 169.
Cox, Rich, 202.
Craig,
319 John, 254.
Cranworth, Lord, 173.
Creighton, Robt, 39.
Croyland Abbey, 91, 181.
Cumberland, Rich, 262.
Dacres, Art, 254.
Damer Cup, The, 123.
Dance, Nath, 112.
Darwin, G. H, 315.
Dawson, John, 308.
Days, Loss of, 217.
Dealtry, Wm, 285, 286, 287.
Deans, College, 28, 206–8, 219–20.
De Aston, John, 155, 156, 160.
De Bagshot, John, 155, 156.
De Balsham, Hugh, 191.
De Berwick, Rich, 155.
De Beverley, Robt, 155, 160.
Declaratio Computi, 128.
De Croyland, Robt, 84, 85.

De Durnford, Nich, 155.
Dee, John, 254.
De Gretford, Hen, 155.
De Gretford, Ralph, 155.
De Hull, John, 155.
De Immeworth, John, 155.
De Kelsey, John, 155.
De Kingston, Edw, 155, 160.
De la Pryme, Abraham, 259.
De London, Phil, 155.
De Morgan, Aug, 256, 284, 286.
Denman, Geo, 130, 141.
De Nottingham, Walter, 155.
Derby, Henry Earl of, 110, 111.
De Rome, Nich, 155.
De Salisbury, John, 155.
De Salisbury, Rich, 155.
Descartes, René, 227, 236, 237.
De Stanton, Hervey, 87.
De Sutton, Hugh, 155.
De Torterold, Jas, 155.
De Torterold, John, 155.
Devereux, Robt, 108, 165.
Devonshire, Duke of, 316.
D’Ewes, Simon, 208.
De Winchester, David, 155, 160.
De Windsor, Thos, 155.
De Woodstock, John, 155.
Dialectici, 16.
Digges, Thos, 254.
Discipline, ch xii, 27, 32, 33.
Discommonsing, 216, 217, 219.
Dissizaring, 216, 217.
Distribucio Collegii, 13–22.
Dobson, Wm, 81.
Donaldson, J. W, 81.
Douglas, Stair, 288, 292.
Downing, Sir Geo, 131.
Draghswerd, Wm, 155.
Dryden, John, 111, 169, 219.
Duport, Jas, 40, 169.
Duport Salt, The, 121, 122.
Early University History, ch xi.
Earnshaw, Sam, 298.

Eddington, A. S, 315.
Edward II, 84, 154.
Edward III, 84, 115, 117, 163.
Edward IV, 110.
Edward VI, 87, 115, 164.
Edward VII, 174.
Elizabeth of York, 106, 115.
Elizabeth, Queen, 48, 49, 90, 91, 92, 114, 115, 117, 144,
164, 167, 168.
Ellethorpe, 213.
Ellis, Wm, 129, 130, 133.
Emerson, Wm, 268.
Euclid’s Elements, 271, 279, 281.
Euler, Leonhard, 240.
Essex, Earl of, 108, 165.
Everett, Wm, 174.
Ewing, J. A, 316.
Eworth, Hans, 106, 115.
Expulsions, 221–224.
Fairfax,
320 Sir Thos, 97.
Fakenham Rectory, 11.
Farish, Wm, 285.
Fees, College, in 1570, 36–37.
Fellow-Commoners, 29, 34, 119.
Fellows, Election of, 30.
Fellowship Election in 1659, 39.
Felmersham Vicarage, 11.
Fenn, John, 263.
Ferguson, Jas, 267.
Field, Fred, 81.
Fines, 215–216.
Fiott (Lee), John, 285, 287.
Firebrace Cup, The, 122.
First Trinity Boat Club, 124, 125, 174.
Fitzgerald, Edw, 173.
Fitzgerald Tankard, The, 122.
Flamsteed, John, 230, 254.
Fletcher, Bishop, 57.
Fletcher, W. M, 43.
Flogging, 199–208, 210–214.
Fluxions, 289–292.
Foley Tankard, The, 123.
Forsyth, A. R, 315, 316.
Fort, John, 155.

Foster, Michael, 110, 111.
Foster, Sam, 254.
Foundation of Trinity, ch i.
Franciscan Monastery, 19, 184.
Frazer, Sir Jas, 170.
Frere, John, 265.
Fuller, Thos, 93.
Galileo, 231, 232, 239.
Galton, Fras, 110, 111, 174.
Gating, 218–219.
General Examination, 297.
George I, 259.
George III, 107.
Gerrard, Mark, 115.
Glaisher, J. W. L, 252.
Glazebrook, R. T, 316.
Glomerels, 181, 189–191.
Gloucester, Duke of, 107, 112, 115.
Goad, Roger, 204.
Gooch, Wm, 276.
Goodman, Gabriel, 52.
Gordon, Douglas, 107.
Gouldesborough, Edw, 57.
Grace, J. H, 316.
Graham, Robt, 129, 136.
Grammar, Degrees in, 190, 191.
Grammarians, 15, 16, 17, 28, 181, 189–191.
Grammar School at Trinity, 15–17, 28, 30.
Grammatici, 15, 16, 17, 28.
Granby, Marquess of, 112, 113.
Gravitation, Law of, ch xiii.
Gray, 88.
Greaves Cup, The, 123.
Greaves, Wm, 129, 135, 136.
Greek Authors read in 1570, 37.
Green, Geo, 311.
Grendon Vicarage, 11.
Griffith, T, 133.
Griffon, John, 155.
Griffon, Thos, 155.
Grigson, Thos, 215.
Grote, John, 174.
Grundisburgh Rectory, 12.
Guilds, University, 188.

Gulphing, 264.
Gunning, Hen, 275, 278.
Hacket, John, 61.
Halfhead, 223.
Halifax, Earl of, 110.
Hallam, A. H, 173.
Halley, Edmund, 228, 230.
Hamilton, Hugh, 267.
Hardy, G. H, 316.
Hare, J. C, 173.
Harman, Rich, 15.
Harvey,
321 John, 254.
Harwood, Busick, 285.
Heath, J. M, 81.
Helsham, Rich, 267.
Henry I, 180.
Henry II, 180.
Henry VII, 106, 115.
Henry VIII, 3, 48, 106, 162, 167.
Herbert, Geo, 61, 169.
Herkomer, H. von, 109.
Herman, R. A, 316.
Herschel, John, 290.
Herschel, Wm, 240.
Hill, Thos, 254.
Hitch, Robt, 223.
Hobson, E. W, 315, 316.
Hodges, 213.
Hodson, Wm, 273.
Holbein, 106.
Hon. Optimes, 257, 261, 296.
Hood, Thos, 254.
Hooke, Robt, 228.
Hopkins, Wm, 308–310.
Hopkinson, B, 316.
Hornbuckle, T. W, 286, 287, 288.
Horrox, Jeremiah, 254.
Hort, F. J. A, 110, 111, 176.
Hostels, Private, 27, 29, 192, 193, 195, 198, 199.
Houghton, Lord, 173.
Howson, J. S, 76.
Huddling, 255, 258.
Hughes, Fras, 129, 132.
Humphrey Ewer, The, 120.

Husbands Cup, The, 122.
Hustler, J. D, 285.
Hutton, Archbishop, 57.
Huygens, Christian, 238.
Hydrodynamics, Theory of, 230, 235, 236.
Impositions, 219–221.
Ireland, Rich, 59.
Jacob, Edw, 287, 288, 289.
James I, 54, 64, 66, 114, 117, 168.
James II, 171.
Jeans, J. H, 316.
Jebb, John, 263, 267, 270, 271.
Jebb, R. C, 110, 111, 170, 176.
Jephson, Thos, 285.
Joachim, Joseph, 110.
John, King, 180.
Johnson, 212.
Jones, Thos, 110.
Jurin, Jas, 254.
Kant, Immanuel, 242.
Keate, John, 202.
Keill, John, 267.
Kelvin, Lord, 311.
Kempthorne, John, 285.
Kent Ewer, The, 120.
Kepler’s Problem, 234.
King, C. W, 75.
King, Joshua, 315.
King, John, 59.
Kinglake, A. W, 173.
King’s Hall, 3, 9–11, 20, 84–86, 144, 154–160, 162, 163.
King’s Scholars, see King’s Hall.
Kneller, Godfrey, 112.
Knight, Sam, 130, 137.
Lagrange, J. L, 239, 240, 290.
Laplace, P. S, 241, 242, 290.
Larmor, Joseph, 315, 316.
Laszlö de Lombros, P. A, 112.
Latin Authors read in 1570, 37.
Laud, Wm, 94.
Laughton, Rich, 254, 307.
Laurence, R. V, 43.
Lawrence, Thos, 112.

Lax, Wm, 276, 315.
Least Resistance, Solid of, 236.
Leathem, J. G, 316.
Lecture-Rooms,
322 College, 44, 45.
Lectures, College, 44–46.
Lectureships, Mathematical, 253, 316.
Lee (Fiott), John, 287.
Leg, Thos, 93.
Legendre, A. M, 290.
Lever, Thos, 24.
Library, Trinity, ch viii, 104.
Lightfoot, J. B, 101, 110, 111, 115, 170, 176.
L’Isle, Denys, 129, 134, 135.
Locke’s Essay, 268, 275, 279.
Lombard, Peter, 181.
Long, Roger, 267, 315.
Lonsdale, John, 112.
Loss of Days or Terms, 218.
Love, A. E. H, 316.
Lowndes, Thos, 315.
Lowndean Professorship, 315.
Lucas, Hen, 315.
Lucas, Rich, 277.
Lucasian Professorship, 315.
Lushington, E. L, 174.
Lyndhurst Cup, The, 123.
Lyndhurst, Lord, 173.
Lyons, Israel, 268.
Macaulay, T. B, 117, 173.
Macaulay, W. H, 316.
Macclesfield, Earl of, 111.
Macdonald, H. M, 316.
Maclaurin, Colin, 267, 268.
Man, Henry, 17.
Mansel, W. L, 112, 217.
Martin, Fras, 81.
Martin, Theodore, 123.
Marvell, Andrew, 169.
Mary, Queen, 48, 88, 91, 108, 115, 164, 167.
Mary of Scotland, 115.
Mathematical Board, 300, 301.
Mathematical Tripos, ch xv.
Mathematics, Cambridge, ch xv.
Mathews, G. B, 316.

Maule, W. H, 173.
Maurice, F. D, 110, 111.
Maxwell, J. Clerk, 110, 111, 176, 311, 316.
Maydew, John, 17.
Mechanics, Theory of, 231–232.
Mechanism Professorship, 316.
Medieval Tutorial System, 27.
Medieval University, Beginnings of, ch xi.
Melbourne, Viscount, 110, 111.
Merit, Order of, in Examinations, 261, 307.
Mexborough Cup, The, 123.
Mey, Wm, 5.
Michael-House, 3, 11–13, 20, 86, 87, 162, 163.
Milner, Isaac, 272, 315.
Milnes, Monckton, 173.
Milton, John, 213.
Moderators, Mathematical, 258, 259, 260.
Monasteries at Cambridge, 180, 181, 184, 185.
Monks at University, 181, 185, 186, 187, 196.
Moreton, Albert, 53.
Morland, Sam, 254.
Moro, Antonio, 106, 108.
Motion, Laws of, 232.
Mullinger, J. B, 179, 188, 313.
Munro, H. A. J, 176.
Murray, Thos, 112.
Nebular Hypothesis, 241, 242.
Neile, Rich, 59.
Nevile Cup, The, 119.
Nevile, Robt, 212.
Nevile, Thos, 53, 55, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 114, 149, 166,
167, 168.
Nevile’s Court, 151, 152.
Newton,
323 Isaac, 108, 112, 116, 170, 244–251, 267, 268, 281,
284, 287, 315.
Newton, John, 134.
Newton, Sam, 129, 132, 133, 134.
Newton’s Principia, ch xiii.
Non-Regents, 183.
Northampton, Earl of, 62.
Numbers of Students, 41–44, 188.
Offley, Chris, 223.
Opie, John, 112.
Opponencies, 253.

Optimes, ch xv.
Optimes, Honorary, 257, 261, 296.
Ordines Senioritatis, 261.
Orleans, University of, 182.
Orwell Rectory, 12.
Oughtred, Wm, 252.
Paget, Sir Wm, 6.
Paley, Wm, 265, 275, 279, 299.
Parham, Peter, 213.
Paris, University of, 182, 252.
Parke, Jas, 130, 138, 139, 173.
Parker, Matthew, 4, 5, 6, 7.
Parker, Nich, 155.
Parker, Roger, 155.
Parne, Thos, 215.
Parr, Queen Katherine, 6, 7.
Paston, Clement, 201.
Paulet Tankard, The, 123.
Payne, 255.
Peacock, Geo, 55, 81, 173, 179, 180, 182, 189, 276, 277,
290, 291, 315.
Pearson, John, 108, 111, 170.
Peckitt of York, 116.
Peile, John, 213.
Pell, John, 254.
Penalties, ch xii.
Pendlebury, Rich, 316.
Pensioners, 29, 31, 33, 34.
Pepys, Thos, 217.
Perry, Chas, 76, 78, 79, 81, 82.
Perry Plate, The, 124.
Pheasaunt Tankard, The, 123.
Philip of Spain, 108.
Physwick’s Hostel, 86, 87.
Plate, College, ch vi.
Plume, Thos, 315.
Plumian Professorship, 315.
Poll-Men, see ch xv.
Pollock, J. F, 173, 284, 287.
Porson, Rich, 114, 172.
Portraits, College, ch vi.
Pour, Nich, 155.
Pour, Rich, 155.
Pour, Wm, 155.

Pre-elections, 59, 60, 62, 64.
Prime and Ultimate Ratios, 232.
Principia of Newton, ch xiii.
Prior, Matthew, 112.
Private Tutors, 307–310.
Professors’ Examinations, 297.
Pull, Nich, 155.
Raeburn, Hen, 109.
Raine, Matthew, 110.
Rait, R. S, 200.
Rashdall, Hastings, 179, 199, 220.
Ray, John, 169, 215.
Rayleigh, Lord, 316.
Rayleigh Prizes, 266.
Record, Robt, 254.
Redman, Bishop, 57.
Redman, John, 5, 9, 11, 13, 20, 24, 88, 92.
Regents, 183.
Religious Students, 27.
Remée, 107.
Reneu, Wm, 259.
Resisting Mediums, 235–236.
Respondents,
324 253.
Reynolds, Joshua, 107, 112.
Rhetoric, Degrees in, 190, 191.
Richard III, 110.
Richard, Duke of York, 110.
Richardson, John, 65, 66.
Richmond, H. W, 316.
Ring, Mrs, 112.
Rod, Punishment by, 199–208, 210–214.
Romney, Geo, 115.
Rooke, Laurence, 254.
Rose, C. L, 76.
Rosekin, Andrew, 155.
Roubiliac, L. F, 116.
Routh, E. J, 308–310.
Rud, Bishop, 57.
Rustication, 221–224.
Rutherford, Wm, 267.
Sadleir, Lady, 315.
Sadleirian Professorship, 315.
St Mary’s Ch, Camb, 11.
St Michael’s Ch, Camb, 12, 87, 98, 101.

Salisbury, Earl of, 55, 62.
Sanderson, Nich, see Saunderson.
Sandwich Cup, The, 122.
Saunderson, Nich, 254, 268, 315.
Scholars, Election of, 30, 31.
Scholefield, Jas, 173.
Scot, Major, 97.
Sedgwick, Adam, 81, 110, 111, 173.
Senate-House, 153, 260.
Senate-House Examination, ch xv.
Servant Students, 28.
Seymour, Queen Jane, 106.
Shaw-Lefevre, J. G, 130, 140, 141.
Shepherd, Anth, 315.
Shirley, Walsingham, 61, 223.
Sides, Tutorial, 42, 43.
Sidgwick, Hen, 110, 111, 176.
Simeon, Chas, 74, 112.
Simpson, Thos, 268, 284.
Sizars, 28.
Sloane Tankard, The, 123.
Smith, Elismar, 103.
Smith, John, 315.
Smith, Robt, 111, 172, 254, 265, 267, 315.
Smith, Thos, 4, 5.
Smith’s Prizes, 266.
Solar System, ch xiii.
Solomon, Proverbs of, 203.
Somerset, Duke of, 112, 113, 114.
Sophia, Princess, 107, 108.
S.P.C.U. ch iv, 101.
Special Examinations, 297.
Spectrum Analysis, 242–243.
Spedding, Jas, 173.
Spicer, Robt, 129, 132.
Stangs, 214–215.
Statutes, Trinity, 1552, 30, 31.
1554, 33.
1560, 33, 34.
1844, 35, 175,
1861, 35, 175.
1882, 35, 175.
Stephen, Leslie, 174.
Stevinus, Simon, 231.
Still, Bishop, 57.

Stocks, 214–215.
Stokes, G. G, 315.
Stuart, Bernard, 119, 124.
Stuart, Jas, 316.
Stuart, John, 119, 124.
Subsizars, 28.
Sussex, Duke of, 112.
Sylvester, J. J, 311.
Tavel, G. F, 287.
Taylor, Brook, 254.
Taylor Tankard, The, 123.
Taylor,
325 Tom, 174.
Tennyson, Alf, 108, 115, 117, 174.
Tennyson, Chas, 174.
Tennyson, Fred, 174.
Terms, loss of, 217.
Thackeray, W. M, 170, 173.
Thirlwall, Connop, 71, 72, 73, 83, 173.
Thompson, W. H, 81, 109, 114, 174, 175, 176.
Thomson, J. J, 316.
Thomson, Wm, 311.
Thorp, Thos, 73, 81, 307, 308.
Thorwaldsen, Bertel, 117.
Tindal, N. C, 76, 130, 137, 173.
Tisserand, F. T, 241.
Todhunter, Isaac, 302.
Treasures, College, ch vi.
Trench, R. C, 173.
Trentine Disputes, 188, 189.
Trinity Athletic Clubs, 124–126, 174.
Trinity College, Foundation, ch i.
Trinity College, History of, ch x.
Trinity College, Numbers at, 163.
Tripos, Mathematical, ch xv.
Tripos, Origin of Name, 311–314.
Trot, Warin, 160.
Tunstall, Cuthbert, 253.
Turner, Joseph, 286.
Turton, Thos, 315.
Tusser, Thos, 202, 210.
Tutorial System, ch ii.
Tutors, College, ch ii.
Tutors, Private, 45, 307–310.
Udall, Nich, 202.

Vanderbank, John, 108.
Vandyke, A, 119.
VanSittart, A. A, 130, 140.
Van Somer, Paul, 108.
Vaughan, C. J, 110, 111.
Verdon, Thos, 215.
Verney Cup, The, 122.
Vernon Tankard, The, 123.
Victoria, Queen, 69.
Vince, Sam, 284, 287, 315.
Vortices, Cartesian, 227, 230, 236, 237, 238.
Wakefield, Thos, 17.
Walker, Rich, 99.
Walling, 218.
Wallis, John, 254.
Walpole, Horace, 107.
Walsh, B. D, 81.
Walter, Hen, 285, 286.
Ward, Seth, 254.
Waring, Edw, 263, 277, 281, 286, 287, 315.
Watson, Rich, 264, 279, 307.
Watts, G. F, 108.
Waves, 230, 236.
Wensleydale, Lord, 130, 138, 139, 173.
West, Robt, 93.
Westcott, B. F, 101, 110, 111, 176.
Westlake, John, 110, 111.
Westminster Gowns, 68.
Westminster Scholars, ch iii, 248.
Westminster School, ch iii.
Whetham, W. C. D, 43.
Whewell, Wm, 69, 72, 73, 81, 108, 110, 111, 117, 174, 175,
221, 252, 287, 288, 289, 291, 292.
Whisson, Stephen, 42.
Whiston, Wm, 254, 315.
Whitgift, John, 36, 51, 93, 94, 165, 166, 210.
Whittaker, E. T, 316.
Wilkins, John, 40, 111, 112.
William
326 I, 179.
Williams, Joshua, 138.
Willis and Clark, 143, 152.
Willis, Robt, 90.
Wilson, John, 287, 307.
Windows, Chapel, 91, 93, 102, 115, 116.

Winthrop, Adam, 128, 129, 130, 131.
Wollaston, F. J. H, 285.
Wood, Jas, 277, 284, 286.
Woodhouse, Robt, 286, 287, 290, 315.
Wordsworth, Chris (1), 71, 72, 73, 74, 81.
Wordsworth, Chris (2), 252, 263, 275, 279, 314.
Wordsworth, John, 81.
Wranglers, ch xv.
Wren, Chris, ch viii, 228.
Wright, Edw, 254.
Wright, J. M. F, 100, 174, 219, 293.

Yool, G. V, 130, 142.
York, Richard Duke of, 110.

CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY J. B. PEACE, M.A., AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

327
WORKS BY W. W. ROUSE BALL.

A History of Trinity College, Cambridge.
Pp. xiv+183. Price 3s net. Macmillan & Co., Ltd.

Trinity College, Cambridge (in the College Monographs
Series).
Pp. xiv+107. Price 2s net. J. M. Dent & Co.

A History of the First Trinity Boat Club.
Pp. 190. Price 5s net. Bowes & Bowes.

A History of the Study of Mathematics at Cambridge.
Pp. xvi+264. Price 6s. Cambridge University Press.

An Essay on the Genesis, Contents, and History of
Newton’s Principia.
Pp. x+175. Price 6s net. Macmillan & Co., Ltd.

A History of Mathematics.
Sixth Edition. Pp. xxiv+522. Price 12s 6d net. Macmillan & Co., Ltd.

A Primer of the History of Mathematics.
Fourth Edition. Pp. iv+149. Price 2s 6d net. Macmillan & Co., Ltd.

Mathematical Recreations and Essays.
Seventh Edition. Pp. xvi+492. Price 10s 6d net. Macmillan & Co., Ltd.

Transcriber’s notes
Both “primâ facie” and “prima facie” retained in line with the author’s inconsistent usage.
Hyphenation of commonwealth/common-wealth not regularised because the latter form occurs
only within a quote from a seventeenth-century source. The author's inconsistent use of italics
for abbreviating shillings and pence retained.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CAMBRIDGE
PAPERS ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright royalties.
Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license,
apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and
trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not
be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of
the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project
Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this
eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may
use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative
works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks
may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically
ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S.
copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license,
especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing
Project Gutenberg electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg electronic
work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept
all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your possession. If
you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this
agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom
you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg electronic
works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the